[Cite as State v. Fields,
2019-Ohio-2834.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-35
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-109
:
JESSE G. FIELDS : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 12th day of July, 2019.
...........
KEVIN TALEBI, Atty. Reg. No. 0069198, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Champaign
County Prosecutor’s Office, 200 North Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MICHAEL R. PENTECOST, Atty. Reg. No. 0036803, 117 South Main Street, Suite 400,
Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
WELBAUM, P.J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jesse G. Fields, appeals from his conviction and
sentence in the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to one
count of aggravated possession of drugs. On February 26, 2019, Fields’s appointed
appellate counsel filed a brief under the authority of 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 appeal. On March 6, 2019, this court notified Fields that his counsel found no
meritorious claims to present on appeal and granted Fields 60 days to file a pro se brief
assigning any errors. After Fields failed to file a pro se brief, we conducted an
independent review of the record as required by Anders. Upon reviewing the record, we
find no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court
will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On June 4, 2018, the Champaign County Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging Fields with one count of theft of drugs in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(6),
and one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),
(C)(1)(a). The charges arose after Fields’s employer, Brandy Jackson, reported to police
that Fields had stolen and ingested a capsule of lawfully prescribed Adderall that
belonged to her son.
{¶ 3} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Fields entered a guilty plea to aggravated
possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree. In exchange for his guilty plea, the
State agreed to dismiss the charge for theft of drugs and to have a presentence
investigation (“PSI”) conducted prior to sentencing. The State also agreed to
-3-
recommend that Fields be sentenced to community control sanctions. The State’s
recommendation for community control was conditioned on the PSI not revealing any
undisclosed criminal convictions and on Fields not violating his bond or engaging in any
further criminal activity. Fields also agreed to not pursue intervention in lieu of conviction
under R.C. 2951.041.
{¶ 4} After conducting a plea colloquy in compliance with Crim.R. 11, the trial court
accepted Fields’s guilty plea. The trial court then ordered a PSI report and scheduled
the matter for sentencing. The PSI report indicated that, for the past seven years, Fields
served as a caretaker for Jackson and her children. In exchange for Fields’s services,
Jackson and her husband provided Fields with shelter at their residence. Fields told the
PSI examiner that Jackson and her husband supported him financially and that he paid
no bills.
{¶ 5} The PSI also indicated that Jackson attended the PSI interview with Fields.
Although Fields indicated that he could read and write, the PSI examiner reported that
Jackson indicated she filled out the PSI questionnaire for Fields with Fields’s assistance.
The PSI examiner also noted that, during the interview, Fields would often look to Jackson
for answers to the examiner’s questions and that Jackson would often correct Fields’s
statements.
{¶ 6} The PSI report further indicated that Fields admitted to stealing and ingesting
an Adderall pill that was legally prescribed to Jackson’s son. However, on the day
Jackson reported the incident to police, Fields told the investigating officer that Jackson
had given him one of her son’s Adderall pills six months earlier to help him stay awake
and focused. Fields, however, admitted that he did not have permission to take the pill
-4-
in question. Other than the Adderall pills, Fields told the PSI examiner that he has not
used drugs since 2009 and that he does not need treatment for substance abuse.
{¶ 7} As for his criminal history, the PSI revealed that Fields had no prior felony
record. Fields’s record only consisted of a first-degree-misdemeanor conviction for
receiving stolen property in 2010. Fields also self-reported a 2006 domestic violence
conviction in Las Vegas, Nevada, which the PSI examiner could not confirm. Due
primarily to his limited criminal history, Fields was considered to be a low risk for
reoffending under the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s Community
Supervision Risk Assessment System.
{¶ 8} Prior to sentencing Fields, the trial court considered the PSI report, the
principles and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11, the seriousness and recidivism
factors in R.C. 2929.12, Fields’s sentencing memorandum, and the oral statements given
by both parties. During the parties’ statements, both the prosecutor and Fields’s defense
counsel agreed that Jackson was a negative influence on Fields and should not be
involved in his life. In addition to recommending that Fields have no contact with
Jackson, defense counsel recommended that Fields be ordered to obtain gainful
employment and to complete the “Thinking for a Change” program.
{¶ 9} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a), the trial court found that community
control sanctions were mandatory for Fields’s offense. The trial court therefore ordered
Fields to serve one year of community control sanctions that included both standard and
special conditions. As part of the special conditions, the trial court ordered Fields to have
no contact with Jackson or her son. In order to give Fields time to find employment and
a new place to live, the trial court indicated that the no contact order would not take effect
-5-
until October 15, 2018, which was four weeks from the date of sentencing. Other special
conditions of Fields’s community control included completing the “Thinking for a Change”
program, attending substance abuse counseling, complying with random drug screens,
obtaining employment, and paying court costs.
{¶ 10} Fields thereafter appealed from his conviction and sentence.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 11} As previously noted, Fields’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493. According to Anders, this court
must conduct an independent review of the record to determine if the appeal at issue is
wholly frivolous.
Id. at 744. “Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents
issues lacking in arguable merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because
the prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply, or because it is
uncertain whether a defendant will ultimately prevail on that issue on appeal.” State v.
Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226,
2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. Rather, “[a]n issue
lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be
made that it offers a basis for reversal.”
Id., citing State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 19232,
2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4.
{¶ 12} If we determine the appeal is frivolous, we may grant counsel’s request to
withdraw and then dismiss the appeal without violating any constitutional requirements,
or we can proceed to a decision on the merits if state law requires it. State v. McDaniel,
2d Dist. Champaign No. 2010 CA 13, 2011-Ohio-2186, ¶ 5, citing
Anders at 744.
However, “[i]f we find that any issue presented or which an independent analysis reveals
-6-
is not wholly frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the
defendant.” Marbury at ¶ 7, citing Pullen at ¶ 2.
{¶ 13} In this case, Fields’s appellate counsel has raised one potential assignment
of error for this court’s review. Under the potential assignment of error, counsel suggests
that the trial court may have abused its discretion by imposing a burdensome special
condition of community control. In so arguing, counsel specifically points to the special
condition requiring Fields to have no contact with Jackson, as that condition left Fields
without a home. Counsel submits that it is arguable that a community control sanction
that essentially requires a defendant to become homeless is unduly burdensome and an
abuse of discretion. Under the circumstances of this case, we find no arguable merit to
this claim.
{¶ 14} “When ordering community control sanctions, R.C. 2929.15 grants a
sentencing court broad discretion to impose residential, nonresidential, and financial
sanctions, as well as other conditions the court deems appropriate.” (Emphasis added.)
State v. Rogers, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24848, 2012-Ohio-4753, ¶ 21, citing State v.
Talty,
103 Ohio St.3d 177,
2004-Ohio-4888,
814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 10. “Therefore, we
review a trial court’s imposition of conditions upon a defendant’s community control
sanctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Id.
{¶ 15} “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable,
arbitrary or unconscionable.” (Citation omitted.) AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place
Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161,
553 N.E.2d 597
(1990). Most abuses of discretion “result in decisions that are simply unreasonable,
rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.”
Id. Decisions are
-7-
unreasonable when they are not supported by a sound reasoning process. Id.
{¶ 16} “[T]he tests for reasonableness of a [community control] sanction are those
announced in [State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51,
550 N.E.2d 469 (1990)] regarding
reasonableness of a condition of probation.” State v. Lacey, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
23261,
2009-Ohio-6267, ¶ 12, citing Talty. In Jones, the Supreme Court of Ohio held
that a trial court may impose conditions upon a defendant’s probation that relate to the
interests of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and insuring his good behavior.
Jones at 52, citing former R.C. 2951.02(C). In making this determination, “courts should
consider whether the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2)
has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates
to conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the
statutory ends of probation.” (Citations omitted.)
Id. at 53.
{¶ 17} When considering the factors in Jones, it cannot be said that the trial court’s
order for Fields to have no contact with Jackson or her son was unreasonable. As to the
first factor, the no contact order was reasonably related to rehabilitating Fields because
the record indicates that Jackson was a negative influence on him. This is demonstrated
by the fact that Jackson had previously given Fields one of her son’s Adderall pills to help
him stay awake and focused. In addition, the bartering arrangement between Jackson
and Fields had allowed 48-year-old Fields to go without having gainful employment for
seven years. The record indicates that Fields was previously employed as a truck driver,
but he decided to quit driving because “he just got tired of it” and “wanted to take a break.”
Sentencing Trans. (Sept. 17, 2018), p. 9. Despite being healthy and capable of working,
Fields had since lived on food stamps and had not paid taxes since 2004. His
-8-
arrangement with Jackson had permitted him to continue this trend. Jackson’s
participation in the PSI process also demonstrated that Jackson exerted an odd amount
of control over Fields’s life. For these reasons, it would be reasonable to conclude that
Jackson’s influence over Fields could diminish the prospect of Fields remaining drug free
and obtaining gainful employment.
{¶ 18} With regard to the second factor in Jones, we find that the no contact order
bore some relationship to the crime since Jackson had previously given Fields an Adderall
pill. Similarly, for the third factor, the no contact order was reasonably related to
preventing possible future criminality since it prevented Fields from procuring any more
Adderall from Jackson or her son.
{¶ 19} We further note that the trial court imposed the no contact order after both
the prosecutor and Fields’s defense counsel expressed their belief that the no contact
order was in Fields’s best interest. Although the no contact order required Fields to find
a new place to live, the order did not go in effect until four weeks after sentencing, which
provided Fields with time to find a new residence. When the trial court asked Fields if he
believed four weeks was “fair,” Fields responded: “Yes, Your Honor.” Sentencing Trans.
(Sept. 17, 2018), p. 16.
{¶ 20} For the foregoing reasons, we find that appellate counsel’s potential
assignment of error lacks arguable merit. The special condition of community control
requiring Fields to have no contact with Jackson or her son was reasonable and not an
abuse of discretion. Therefore, no responsible contention can be made that the no
contact order offers a basis for reversal.
{¶ 21} After conducting an independent review of the record as required by
-9-
Anders, we find that, based on the facts and relevant law involved, there are no issues
with arguable merit to present on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
.............
FROELICH, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Kevin Talebi
Michael R. Pentecost
Jesse G. Fields
Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio
