State v. Knight , 2016 Ohio 8297 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State v. Knight, 2016-Ohio-8297.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 104675
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ROBERT KNIGHT
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
DISMISSED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-14-582971-A and CR-15-601601-A
BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., Boyle, J., and Laster Mays, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 22, 2016
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Steve W. Canfil
55 Public Square
Suite 2100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Also listed:
Robert Knight
Inmate No. 683538
Richland Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 8107
Mansfield, OH 44905
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
TIM McCORMACK, P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert Knight appeals the trial court’s judgment in
Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-14-582971-A and CR-15-601601-A. Knight’s appointed
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18
L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and has requested leave to withdraw as counsel in accordance with
Loc.App.R. 16.
{¶2} Knight was indicted for escape, drug possession, and receiving stolen
property in Case No. CR-14-582971-A. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to the amended
charges of attempted escape, drug possession, and attempted receiving stolen property.
The court sentenced Knight to two years of community control sanctions. Knight was
later charged in a six-count indictment for three counts of felonious assault, one count of
aggravated menacing, and two counts of criminal damaging or endangering in Case No.
CR-15-601601-A. He entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of attempted
aggravated assault, criminal damaging, and aggravated menacing, and the remaining
charges were dismissed. The court sentenced Knight to two years of community control
sanctions. Based upon his conviction in CR-15-601601-A, the court found Knight to be
in violation of his community control sanctions in CR-14-582971-A and continued
Knight’s community control. Subsequently, Knight violated his community control in
both cases and the court terminated Knight’s community control. The court then
imposed a prison sentence of 12 months in CR-14-582971-A and 9 months in
CR-15-601601-A, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate prison term of 21 months.
{¶3} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel, after a
conscientious examination of the case, concludes that the appeal is “wholly frivolous,”
counsel may advise the court of that fact and request permission to withdraw from the
case. Anders at 744. This request, however, must “be accompanied by a brief
identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Id.
Further, counsel must furnish the client with a copy of the brief and allow the client
sufficient time to file his or her own brief, pro se. Id.
{¶4} Here, appointed counsel fully complied with the requirements of Anders
and Loc. App. R. 16(C). Counsel filed an Anders brief and provided that he served his
brief upon his client. This court held counsel’s motion to withdraw in abeyance and
granted Knight leave until October 17, 2016, in which to file a pro se brief. To date,
Knight has failed to file a brief on his own behalf.
{¶5} In counsel’s Anders brief, counsel stated that he thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcripts of the proceedings, and determined that there were no
prejudicial errors or nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. Specifically, counsel (1)
reviewed the record for compliance with Crim.R. 11 relative to the requirements that the
pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and found no deviations from Crim.R. 11;
and (2) considered the sentencing proceedings and found no prejudicial sentencing errors.
{¶6} In accordance with Anders, once appellant’s counsel satisfied the foregoing
requirements, this court then examines the proceedings below to determine if any
meritorious issues exist. If we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may grant
counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional
requirements, or we may “proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires.”
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493. If, however, the court finds
any legal points arguable on their merits, it must afford the appellant assistance of counsel
before deciding the merits of the case. Id.
{¶7} Pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16 and Anders, this court has conducted an
independent examination of the record to determine if there are any legal issues of
arguable merit. Upon a complete review of the record, this court agrees that no
prejudicial error occurred in the lower court, and any appeal on Knight’s behalf would be
frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
{¶8} Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR
KEY WORDS:
State v. Knight, Appeal No. 104675
Anders brief; Loc.App.R. 16; withdraw; dismiss. Appointed counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed where appointed counsel filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967), and Loc.App.R. 16 asserting there are no legal issues of arguable merit to raise on
appeal, and this court agreed, following an independent review of the record.