[Cite as State v. Bell,
2021-Ohio-1327.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 28909
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2020-CR-1358
:
JORDAN BELL : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 16th day of April, 2021.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division,
Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio
45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ADAM J. ARNOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0088791, 120 West Second Street, Suite 1717,
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
DONOVAN, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jordan Bell appeals from his convictions for trespass
in a habitation in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B), violation of a protection order in violation
of R.C. 2919.26, and domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Bell filed a timely
notice of appeal. Bell’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that no
prejudicial error occurred below and that any grounds for appeal would be frivolous; he
also seeks leave to withdraw as counsel. On November 23, 2020, we notified Bell of the
filing of an Anders brief and provided him with 60 days to file a pro se brief, but Bell has
not filed a pro se brief.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Bell was indicted for one count of trespass in a habitation, a felony of the
fourth degree, one count of a violation of a protection order, a felony of the third degree,
and one count of domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor. On July 14, 2020,
Bell pled guilty to all the offenses. Prior to entering his guilty plea, the trial court advised
Bell of the maximum sentences associated with each offense. The trial court conducted
a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy and found that Bell’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily entered. At the plea hearing, the State read the pertinent facts into the
record and deferred to the Court in regard to sentencing. The trial court accepted Bell’s
guilty pleas, found him guilty of the offenses, and ordered a presentence investigation
(“PSI”).
{¶ 3} After ordering the PSI, the trial court heard a motion to reduce bond and
reduced the bond to conditional own recognizance, which included an order to stay away
from the victim in the case. Sentencing was set for August 11, 2020.
-3-
{¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court noted the purposes and principles of sentencing
and emphasized that the PSI report reflected that Bell had an extensive and lengthy
juvenile record. Bell was sentenced to 36 months for violating a protection order, 18
months for trespass in a habitation, and 180 days for domestic violence, all to run
concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of 36 months.
{¶ 5} Appellate counsel included two potential assignments of error in the Anders
brief filed in this court but concluded that they lack merit.
Anders Standard
{¶ 6} Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967),
outlines the procedure appellate counsel must follow when he or she finds a lack of any
meritorious grounds for appeal. In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that
if, after a conscientious examination of the case, appointed counsel determines the
appeal to be wholly frivolous, he or she should advise the court of that fact and request
permission to withdraw.
Id. at 744. An Anders brief must identify anything in the record
that could arguably support the appeal.
Id. Further, counsel must also 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.
{¶ 7} Once appellate counsel satisfies these requirements, this court must fully
examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. Id.
If we determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may allow counsel 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.
Id. In the instant case, appointed counsel
fully complied with the requirements of Anders.
-4-
{¶ 8} Appointed counsel’s first potentially meritorious assignment of error is as
follows:
THE APPELLANT ENTERED HIS PLEA KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY,
AND VOLUNTARILY.
{¶ 9} Under the first potential assignment of error, Bell’s appellate counsel
requests this court to review whether the trial court violated Crim.R. 11 during the plea
proceedings. We note that counsel does not assert any specific violation of Crim.R. 11.
Instead, counsel has generally requested that this court review the plea proceedings for
compliance with the rule.
{¶ 10} “Ohio’s Crim.R. 11 outlines the procedures that trial courts are to follow
when accepting pleas.” State v. Dangler, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-2765, __
N.E.3d __, ¶ 11. “[T]he rule ‘ensures an adequate record on review by requiring the trial
court to personally inform the defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea
and determine if the plea is understandingly and voluntarily made.’ ”
Id., quoting State
v. Stone,
43 Ohio St.2d 163, 168,
331 N.E.2d 411 (1975). The Supreme Court of Ohio
has urged trial courts to comply literally with Crim.R. 11. State v. Clark,
119 Ohio St.3d
239,
2008-Ohio-3748,
893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 29. However, in reviewing the plea colloquy,
the focus should be “on whether the dialogue between the court and the defendant
demonstrates that the defendant understood the consequences of his plea.” Dangler at
¶ 12.
{¶ 11} In Bell’s case, the trial court went through each of Bell’s rights and made
sure that he understood them. The transcript reveals that the trial court scrupulously
conducted a thorough and complete Crim.R. 11 plea hearing. Bell acknowledged that he
-5-
understood his rights, the charges, and the plea agreement, and there was no evidence
to suggest the contrary. At the end, the trial court concluded that Bell knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights and entered his pleas. The record supports
this conclusion. Since there is no evidence to suggest that the plea was not knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently made, the first potentially meritorious assignment of error is
without merit.
{¶ 12} Appointed counsel’s second potentially meritorious assignment of error is
as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING
APPELLANT TO 36-MONTHS OF INCARCERATION.
{¶ 13} When reviewing a felony sentence, we must apply the standard of review
set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002,
59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 7. Pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court
may vacate or modify an appellant’s sentence only if it determines by clear and convincing
evidence that: (1) the record did not support the trial court’s findings under relevant
statutes; or (2) the sentence was otherwise contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 1.
{¶ 14} Under R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b) and (4), a felony of the third degree is
punishable with a prison term of up to 36 months, and a felony of the fourth degree is
punishable with a prison term of up to 18 months. R.C. 2929.13(B)(2) and (C) only
require that a trial court comply with the purposes and principles under R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12. So long as the trial court complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, then the
sentence will not be contrary to law. “[A] sentence is not contrary to law when the trial
court imposes a sentence within the statutory range, after expressly stating that it had
-6-
considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, as well
as the factors in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759,
5 N.E.3d 1069,
¶ 32 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Kalish,
120 Ohio St.3d 23,
2008-Ohio-4912,
896 N.E.2d
124, ¶ 18.
{¶ 15} Here, the trial court considered these principles and factors expressly in
sentencing Bell. At disposition, the trial court noted Bell’s extensive and lengthy juvenile
record. Tr. p. 17. The trial court also noted that the present offenses were committed
while he was on post-release control for a first-degree felony. Id. After considering the
purposes and principles of sentencing, the trial court sentenced Bell to a period of 36
months imprisonment for the third-degree felony, 18 months for the fourth-degree felony,
and 180 days for the first-degree misdemeanor, all to run concurrently. The trial court
was not required to make any specific findings, and the sentences were within the range
prescribed by law, so Bell’s sentence was not contrary to law.
Conclusion
{¶ 16} Having performed our duty pursuant to Anders, and for the foregoing
reasons, we conclude that Bell’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
-7-
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Andrew T. French
Adam J. Arnold
Hon. Mary L. Wiseman
