.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vsCase No. 16 CA 04
ROBERT T. FORD, JR.
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of
Common Pleas
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 24, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
DANIEL G. PADDEN LINDSEY K. DONEHUE
Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney 120 Southgate Parkway
139 West 8th Street P.O. Box 464
Cambridge, Ohio 43725 Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 04 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert T. Ford, Jr. appeals his conviction and
sentence entered by the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant was
indicted on two counts of Felonious Assault with gun specifications, one count of Having
Weapons while under Disability, and two counts of Intimidation of a Victim in a Criminal
Case.
{¶2} Appellant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Following an
evaluation, the trial court found Appellant to be competent and further found Appellant
was “not able to maintain a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.”
{¶3} Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a no contest
plea to one count of Felonious Assault. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed
to dismiss the remainder of the counts. The State sought a sentence of 7 years, however,
Appellant was able to argue a lesser sentence was appropriate. The parties agreed the
sentence would be at the discretion of the trial court following a presentence investigation.
Further, the parties agreed to the restitution amount to be imposed as part of the
sentence.
{¶4} Following the presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to a term of 7 years in prison. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
{¶5} Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California (1967),
, indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel for Appellant has raised one
potential assignment of error asking this Court to determine whether the trial court erred
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 04 3
in the sentence imposed upon Appellant. Appellant was given an opportunity to file a
brief raising additional assignments of error, but none was filed.
I.
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED APPELLANT.”
{¶7} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious
examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,
then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.
Counsel must accompany his request with a brief identifying anything in the record that
could arguably support his client's appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client with
a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and, (2) allow his client sufficient time to raise
any matters that the client chooses. Id. Once the defendant's counsel satisfies these
requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine
if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines that the
appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the
appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or may proceed to a decision on the
merits if state law so requires. Id.
{¶8} Counsel in this matter has followed the procedure in Anders v. California
(1967),
.
{¶9} We now will address the merits of Appellant's potential Assignment of Error.
I.
{¶10} Revised Code Section 2953.08, Subsection (G)(2) sets forth the appellate
court's standard of review for sentences as follows:
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 04 4
(2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this
section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the
sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence
and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The
appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court
abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized
by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings
under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of
section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,
whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶11} Appellant’s sentence is not one which was imposed pursuant to the sections
cited in subsection (a) above. Therefore, the only review this Court is permitted to make
is whether Appellant’s sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The
sentence imposed by the trial court was within the statutory sentencing range. We have
reviewed the record and do not find the sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary
to law.
{¶12} Appellant’s proposed assignment of error is overruled.
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 04 5
{¶13} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
