.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 27793
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
THEODORE HAMMOND COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 2015 01 0118
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 28, 2016
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Theodore Hammond, appeals the judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Hammond was convicted of rape and required to register as a sex offender under
Megan’s Law. Upon his release from prison, he reported as required, occasionally appearing late
after receiving a reminder letter. In 2014, he failed to register at his annual anniversary date. He
was charged with failing to register, a third-degree felony. He waived his right to a jury trial
and, following a bench trial, he was found guilty. Although Hammond argued for community
control, and the state sought a sentence of 18 months, the trial court imposed one year of
imprisonment. The trial court appointed counsel for appeal.
{¶3} Hammond’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
(1967), stating that he has reviewed the record and concluded that there are no
2
viable issues to be pursued on appeal. Hammond’s counsel has also moved to withdraw as
counsel of record in this matter. The record reflects that Hammond was served with a copy of
his counsel’s brief, and this Court issued a Magistrate’s Order affording Hammond an
opportunity to raise arguments after review of the Anders brief. Hammond has not filed a brief
on his own behalf.
{¶4} Anders cases present a challenge to the ordinary appellate process. When
appointed counsel, after a thorough examination of the trial court record, is unable to identify
any non-frivolous issues, counsel should file an Anders brief. It should go without saying that
filing an Anders brief should be a last resort, not a first option.1
{¶5} We now turn to appellate counsel’s proposed issues for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
COUNSEL HAS REVIEWED THE RECORD AND TRANSCRIPTS AND CAN
SEE NO REVERSIBLE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN
EITHER THE TRIAL OR SENTENCING HEARING.
{¶6} Appellate counsel identified eight issues for review:
(1) Whether appellant’s registration obligation was properly calculated from start
to finish.
(2) Whether appellant’s waiver of a jury trial followed strict compliance with
R.C. 2945.05 and was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
(3) Whether counsel was ineffective in appellant’s defense.
(4) Whether appellant was properly charged and sentenced under Ohio law.
(5) Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of the crime
charged.
1
Guidelines for drafting an Anders brief are available on this Court’s website at
www.ninth.courts.state.oh.us/Anders.htm.
3
(6) Whether the manifest weight of the evidence was sufficient to support a
conviction of appellant.
(7) Whether the statute which appellant was charged under is unconstitutional.
(8) Whether the offense constituted Double Jeopardy?
{¶7} Appellate counsel’s brief sets forth the applicable law for each of these issues and
addresses the relevant facts. Appellate counsel concludes that there are no issues that were not
wholly frivolous. Based on counsel’s analysis of these issues, and this Court’s own full,
independent examination of the record, we agree that there are no appealable, non-frivolous
issues in this case. See State v. Randles, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23857, 2008–Ohio–662, ¶ 6. We,
therefore, grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.
III.
{¶8} Having reviewed the entire record and having found that no appealable issues
exist, this Court concludes that Hammond’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous under
Anders. The motion to withdraw filed by Hammond’s counsel is granted. The judgment of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
4
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
WHITMORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
RYAN RAMAGE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
