State v. McCullough , 2018 Ohio 2340 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. McCullough, 
    2018-Ohio-2340
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    LUCAS COUNTY
    State of Ohio                                        Court of Appeals No. L-17-1142
    Appellee                                     Trial Court No. CR0201701083
    v.
    Robert Keith McCullough                              DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    Appellant                                    Decided: June 15, 2018
    *****
    Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
    Alyssa Breyman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    Patricia Horner, for appellant.
    *****
    PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Robert McCullough, was permitted to file a delayed appeal from
    the March 22, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, in which the
    trial court accepted appellant’s plea of no contest and convicted him of the lesser-
    included offense of aggravated assault, a violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1) and (B), a
    felony of the fourth degree. Appellant was sentenced to 14 months in prison. One week
    later, appellant sought to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied on May 5, 2017,
    after a hearing on the matter.
    {¶ 2} Pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S.Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L.Ed.2d 493
     (1967), appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an
    appellate brief and motion to withdraw as counsel. She attested in her affidavit that she
    mailed a copy of the brief and motion to appellant and informed him that he had a right to
    file his own brief, but he did not do so.
    {¶ 3} Appellant’s counsel states in her motion that she thoroughly reviewed the
    record in this case and concluded that the trial court did not commit any error prejudicial
    to appellant. However, in compliance with the requirements of Anders, appellant’s
    counsel has submitted a brief setting forth the following potential assignment of error:
    APPELLANT COULD ASSERT HIS PLEA WAS NOT
    VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY OR WILLINGLY ENTERED INTO.
    {¶ 4} Appellant’s appointed counsel has included arguments which support this
    assignment of error, but concludes that it is unsupported by the record and the law.
    Therefore, she concludes that an appeal would be frivolous.
    {¶ 5} When a defendant desires to enter a guilty or no contest plea, a trial court
    must conduct a hearing and address the defendant personally pursuant to Crim.R.
    11(C)(2). Furthermore, the rule requires that the trial court must inform the defendant of
    certain information, make specific determinations, and give the warnings required by
    2.
    subsections (a) and (b) and notify the defendant of the constitutional rights listed in
    subsection (c) that are waived by entering a plea.
    {¶ 6} In this case, the trial court’s colloquy with appellant was very thorough and
    fulfilled each of the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2). Therefore, we find no merit to the
    error alleged by appellant’s appointed counsel.
    {¶ 7} Furthermore, this court has the obligation to fully examine the record in this
    case to determine whether an appeal would be frivolous. Anders, 
    386 U.S. at 744
    , 
    87 S.Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L.Ed.2d 493
    . Our review of the record does not disclose any errors by the
    trial court which would justify a reversal of the judgment. Therefore, we find this appeal
    to be wholly frivolous. Counsel’s request to withdraw as appellate counsel is found
    well-taken and is hereby granted.
    {¶ 8} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
    appellant, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
    Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is hereby ordered to pay the court costs incurred on
    appeal. The clerk is ordered to serve all parties with notice of this decision.
    Judgment affirmed.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
    See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
    3.
    State v. McCullough
    C.A. No. L-17-1142
    Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.                      _______________________________
    JUDGE
    Arlene Singer, J.
    _______________________________
    Thomas J. Osowik, J.                                      JUDGE
    CONCUR.
    _______________________________
    JUDGE
    This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
    Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
    version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
    4.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: L-17-1142

Citation Numbers: 2018 Ohio 2340

Judges: Pietrykowski

Filed Date: 6/15/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/15/2018