[Cite as State v. Stanaford,
2022-Ohio-4462.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2022-A-0052
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
SEAN EARNEST STANAFORD,
Trial Court No. 2021 CR 00521
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: December 12, 2022
Judgment: Affirmed
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson,
OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michael J. Ledenko, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sean Earnest Stanaford, appeals from his conviction
for Aggravated Possession of Drugs in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas.
For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
{¶2} On January 13, 2022, Stanaford was indicted by the Ashtabula County
Grand Jury for Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation
of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a), with a forfeiture specification under R.C. 2941.1417.
{¶3} On April 19, 2022, a Written Plea of Guilty and Plea Agreement was filed.
At the plea hearing, the court advised Stanaford of the rights waived, including the right
to a jury trial, to question and call witnesses, not to testify, to have the State prove the
offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to appeal. The court advised
Stanaford of the charge to which he was pleading guilty and the potential penalty he
faced. When Stanaford stated that he did not understand the potential prison term, the
court explained the potential sentence and that it was not mandatory. It explained the
forfeiture as well as post-release control. The court determined that the plea was entered
voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel. The State indicated that the crime occurred
when police discovered Stanaford and another occupant of a vehicle in possession of
methamphetamine. The court issued a Judgment Entry accepting Stanaford’s plea.
{¶4} The court held a sentencing hearing on May 31, 2022, at which defense
counsel observed that there was a joint recommendation for community control and
argued that Stanaford is amenable to community control sanctions. Counsel argued that
NEOCAP should be reserved for a violation of community control and that the court
should “see how he does in the community before sending him to NEOCAP.” Stanaford
stated that if he went to NEOCAP he was “not sure how [he] would react to it.” The State
recommended community control, observed that Stanaford’s risk assessment indicated
he is “high risk,” and stated that “we want to get the defendant into some form of sobriety.”
The court observed that Stanaford “continue[s] to commit crimes,” has not responded
favorably to prior sanctions, and is in need of treatment. It ordered Stanaford to serve a
term of two years of community control with various conditions preventing drinking and
drug consumption. He was also ordered to “enter and successfully complete the
Northeast Ohio Community Alternative Program (NEOCAP)” and complete any program
recommendations. This sentence was memorialized in a May 31, 2022 Judgment Entry.
2
Case No. 2022-A-0052
{¶5} Stanaford appealed from his conviction. On August 29, 2022, appellate
counsel filed Stanaford’s appellate brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel represented that he had reviewed the
record and found “no meritorious issues” upon which to base an appeal. On the same
date, counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw. This court granted Stanaford 30 days in which
“to file his own submission, if he so chooses, which raises any additional arguments in
support of the appeal.” Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw was held in abeyance.
Stanaford has not filed any further brief or memorandum in support of his appeal.
{¶6} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court outlined the proper steps to be
followed in this situation: “if counsel finds his client’s case to be wholly frivolous, counsel
should advise the court and request permission to withdraw; … the request to withdraw
must be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal; … counsel should furnish the indigent client with a copy of counsel’s
brief, and time must be allowed for the client to raise any points he chooses.” State v.
Spears, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0027, 2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5, citing
Anders at
744. The appellate court must conduct “a full examination of all the proceedings, to
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”
Anders at 744. “Only after this separate
inquiry, and only after the appellate court finds no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, may the
court proceed to consider the appeal on the merits without the assistance of
counsel.” Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80,
109 S.Ct. 346,
102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).
Accordingly, we will proceed to conduct a review of the record, pursuant to Anders.
{¶7} In his brief, counsel raises one potential area for review which may arguably
support the appeal: “The trial court erred in imposing residential sanctions on defendant-
3
Case No. 2022-A-0052
appellant, Sean E. Stanaford, as part of the community control sanctions rather than
utilizing the least restrictive sanctions available to accomplish the goals of community
control sanctions and felony sentencing.” Counsel concludes this error lacks merit.
{¶8} Initially, we observe that “[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not
subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been
recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed
by a sentencing judge.” R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Here, the parties and the court indicated
that there was a jointly recommended sentence of community control sanctions. The
court ordered community control and, as part of that sentence, that Stanaford be placed
in NEOCAP. Stanaford argued against the imposition of NEOCAP at sentencing, with
counsel stating “I think we can release him … and see how he does in the community
before sending him to NEOCAP.” The State indicated: the court “has a number of things
it can do on behalf of the defendant. … The Court will … have NEOCAP if need be.”
Under these circumstances, we will address the merits of whether the imposition of the
community control sanction and the conditions constituted error.
{¶9} In hearing an appeal of felony sentences, the appellate court reviews the
record and “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under
this section or may vacate the sentence and remand … if it clearly and convincingly
finds … [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
{¶10} R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) provides that, “[i]f in sentencing an offender for a
felony the court is not required to impose a prison term, a mandatory prison term, or a
term of life imprisonment …, the court may directly impose a sentence that consists of
one or more community control sanctions authorized pursuant to section 2929.16,
4
Case No. 2022-A-0052
2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2929.16(A)(1) allows the court to impose
“community residential sanctions” which include “a term of up to six months at a
community-based correctional facility.” Further, R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) provides that “[t]he
court may impose any other conditions of release under a community control sanction
that the court considers appropriate, including, but not limited to, requiring that the
offender not ingest or be injected with a drug of abuse and submit to random drug testing
as provided in division (D) of this section ….”
{¶11} R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) “vests the trial court with the discretion to impose any
condition of community control conditions or requirements it deems appropriate. Courts
have broad discretion when imposing conditions.” State v. Ryan, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2021-L-032, 2021-Ohio-4059, ¶ 30, citing State v. Talty,
103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-
4888,
814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 10. “The relevant inquiry to determine whether a court abused
this discretion in imposing a condition is three-fold: (1) is the condition reasonably related
to rehabilitating the offender, (2) does it have some relationship to the crime of which the
offender was convicted, and (3) does it relate to conduct that is criminal or reasonably
related to future criminality and serves the ends of probation.”
Id.
{¶12} Here, the court was permitted to order community control since there was
no required prison term for the offense. As a condition of community control, it ordered
Stanaford to serve a term in NEOCAP, which is a community-based correctional facility.
Such an order is permissible pursuant to R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) and 2929.16(A)(1). It is
evident the court ordered Stanaford to be placed in NEOCAP due to his history of criminal
offenses, including drug-related offenses and failure to respond to prior sanctions.
{¶13} As part of the conditions of community control, the court also ordered that
5
Case No. 2022-A-0052
Stanaford not enter bars or similar establishments or consume non-prescribed medicines,
marijuana, or alcohol. It also required him to submit to random urinalysis and undergo
drug and alcohol evaluations. We find no error in these conditions. Stanaford was
convicted of Aggravated Possession of Drugs. He had several past misdemeanor and
felony drug convictions and admitted to consistent drug use. The State indicated a need
to help Stanaford obtain “sobriety.” These conditions related to his conduct and
rehabilitation. Conditions requiring abstention from the use of drugs and alcohol, and
accompanying requirements for testing, have been upheld where they are related to the
criminal conduct. See State v. Weimer, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0040, 2005-Ohio-
2361, ¶ 48-49; State v. Thomas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111116, 2022-Ohio-2682, ¶ 18-
19.
{¶14} A further review of the record reveals no other meritorious issues for review,
including the entry and acceptance of Stanaford’s plea.
{¶15} The record indicates that the plea was voluntary, as the court inquired as to
the voluntary nature of the plea and Stanaford’s satisfaction with counsel. Further, the
court complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11 in accepting the plea. State v. Clark,
119 Ohio St.3d 239,
2008-Ohio-3748,
893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 29 (“The best way to ensure that
pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily is to simply follow the requirements of Crim.R.
11 when deciding whether to accept a plea agreement.”).
{¶16} Pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), when a defendant pleads guilty to a felony
offense, the trial court must address the defendant personally and inform him of his
constitutional and non-constitutional rights prior to accepting his plea. The court was
required to inform the defendant of the effect of a guilty plea and that the court may
6
Case No. 2022-A-0052
proceed to judgment and sentencing, which the court also did in compliance with Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(b). Further, the court was required to inform him of the waiver of the right to a
jury trial, to confront witnesses, to summon witnesses, not to be compelled to testify, and
to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The
transcript indicates the court advised Stanaford of each of these rights and he indicated
his understanding of such rights. The court explained the charges and potential
sentences faced by Stanaford, as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), and, when he stated
that he did not understand certain sentencing issues, the court explained this further until
he indicated understanding. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the plea was
not entered knowingly and voluntarily or without proper advisement of Stanaford’s rights.
{¶17} Having thus duly conducted an independent review of the record, we
conclude that the present appeal is wholly frivolous and there are no arguable issues
necessitating the appointment of new counsel. Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is granted
and the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
FREDERICK D. NELSON, J., Ret., Tenth Appellate District, sitting by assignment,
concur.
7
Case No. 2022-A-0052
