State v. VanHoose , 2014 Ohio 3944 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. VanHoose, 2014-Ohio-3944.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 2013-CA-23
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 13-CR-25
v. :
:
SHEA M. VanHOOSE : (Criminal Appeal from
: (Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 12th day of September , 2014.
...........
KEVIN S. TALEBI, Champaign County Prosecutor’s Office, 200 North Main Street, Urbana,
Ohio 43078
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MICHAEL R. PENTECOST, Atty. Reg. #0036803, 117 South Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton,
Ohio 45422
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
SHEA M. VanHOOSE, 225 Logan Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078
Defendant-Appellant, pro se
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Shea M. VanHoose appeals from his conviction and sentence following a
negotiated guilty plea to one count of trafficking in marijuana, a fifth-degree felony.
{¶ 2} VanHoose’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), asserting the absence of any
non-frivolous issues for appellate review and requesting permission to withdraw. We notified
VanHoose of counsel’s filing and gave him an opportunity to submit a pro se brief. No such brief
has been filed.
{¶ 3} In his Anders filing, counsel does identify a potential assignment of error
concerning the propriety of VanHoose’s ten-month prison sentence. Counsel concludes, however,
that a challenge to the sentence would be frivolous because it was less than the statutory
maximum and was supported by the record.
{¶ 4} Upon review, we agree that a challenge to VanHoose’s sentence would be
frivolous. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s web site reflects that
VanHoose is no longer incarcerated, and a county “JusticeWeb” site reflects that he is no longer
even on post-release supervision. See State v. Bair, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2011-CA-8,
2011-Ohio-6798, ¶ 4 (taking judicial notice that a defendant’s name did not appear on the ODRC
web site of incarcerated individuals). Therefore, any challenge to his sentence would be moot. Id.
at ¶ 6.
{¶ 5} Finally, pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, we independently have
examined the record, including plea and sentencing hearing transcripts, and have found no
non-frivolous issues for appellate review. The record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary guilty plea in compliance with Crim.R. 11. In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to
dismissal of a second count and deleted a specification that VanHoose’s offense was committed
within the vicinity of a juvenile, reducing the offense from a fourth-degree to a fifth-degree
3
felony.
{¶ 6} Appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from further representation is sustained,
and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
.............
FROELICH, P.J., and FAIN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Kevin S. Talebi
Michael R. Pentecost
Shea VanHoose
Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio