[Cite as State v. Frasure,
2025-Ohio-2922.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2024-A-0049
2024-A-0050
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeals from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
JASON RYAN FRASURE,
Trial Court Nos. 2024 CR 00006
Defendant-Appellant. 2024 CR 00009
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 18, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson,
OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Russell S. Bensing, 729 Derby Way, Avon Lake, OH 44012 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jason Ryan Frasure, appeals his convictions and/or
sentences for OVI and Trespass in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. For
the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
{¶2} On April 24, 2024, Frasure entered a plea of guilty to Operating a Vehicle
under the Influence of Alcohol, a Drug of Abuse or a Combination of Them, a felony of
the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h) and (G)(1)(d), in Ashtabula C.P.
No. 2024 CR 00006. The prosecutor proffered the following factual basis for the charge:
On December 23rd of 2023, APD was dispatched to a report of a
male passed out behind the wheel of a car. The officer responded
to the car in the northbound lane of West Avenue preparing to turn
westbound onto West 19th Street. The operator was the defendant.
He had several cars behind him waiting to turn as well. The
defendant was leaning forward with his head propped up by the
steering wheel. The car was running and the gear was in drive. The
officer reached over and placed the shift into park and removed the
keys. … An open container of Fireball was in the center console and
defendant smelled of alcohol. … He was asked to step outside the
car and was asked if he needed medical treatment, which he refused.
The defendant did not have a valid driver’s license. He failed the
horizontal gaze nystagmus test. He tried to provide a urine sample,
but could not urinate. But then he provided a BAC at Post 4 and it
came back as .271. He had three prior DUIs within ten years.
With respect to OVI, the trial court advised Frasure that the charge carried the following
penalties: a mandatory term of incarceration of 60 days and a potential additional term of
between 6 and 30 months; a mandatory minimum fine of $1,350 and a potential maximum
fine of $10,500; and a mandatory license suspension of 3 years and a potential maximum
lifetime suspension.
{¶3} At the same plea hearing, Frasure entered a plea of guilty to Trespass in a
Habitation when a Person is Present or Likely to be Present, a felony of the fourth degree
in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B) and (E), in Ashtabula C.P. No. 2024 CR 00009. The
prosecutor proffered the following factual basis for the charge:
December 2nd of ’23, APD was dispatched to 1812 Pleasantville for
a report of an unwanted subject. The victim stated he was at his
grandson’s house and someone was downstairs in the basement
without their permission. He said he drove by the house and saw a
truck there, so he stopped to check it out and found the defendant in
the basement. The defendant was on victim’s camera coming into
the house through the garage and then walking around.
With respect to Trespass, the trial court advised Frasure that the charge carried a term of
incarceration of between six and eighteen months and a fine of up to $5,000 and that
neither incarceration nor the fine were mandatory.
PAGE 2 OF 7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050
{¶4} At the same plea hearing, Frasure entered a plea of guilty to Criminal
Trespass in Ashtabula C.P. No. 2024 CR 00067. This case has not been appealed.
{¶5} A sentencing hearing for all cases was held on May 20, 2024. For OVI, the
trial court sentenced Frasure to 26 months of incarceration in prison, imposed a fine of
$1,350, and suspended his license for 8 years. For Trespass in a Habitation, the court
sentenced Frasure to 14 months of incarceration in prison. For Criminal Trespass, the
court sentenced Frasure to 30 days of incarceration. All sentences were imposed
concurrent to one another.
{¶6} On June 5, 2024, Frasure filed Notices of Appeal in Ashtabula C.P. No.
2024 CR 00006 and Ashtabula C.P. No. 2024 CR 00009, which have been consolidated.
{¶7} Counsel for Frasure has filed a Brief of Appellant pursuant to Anders v.
California and a Motion to Withdraw as Appellate Counsel. As grounds for withdrawal,
counsel asserted that, “after careful review of the record and the case law, [he] can
discern no errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant which present
issues meriting review.”
{¶8} Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “permit[s] an attorney who, after
conscientious examination of the record, concludes that a criminal appeal is wholly
frivolous to so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, provided that his
request is accompanied with a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably
support the client’s appeal.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Moore,
2016-Ohio-8288, ¶ 18.
After the appellant is given the opportunity to raise additional issues supplementing the
Anders brief, the court of appeals “must review the entire record to determine whether the
appeal is wholly frivolous.” State v. Manyo,
2023-Ohio-267, ¶ 14. “If [the] court is unable
PAGE 3 OF 7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050
to find issues of arguable merit, the decision is affirmed on the merits and counsel is
allowed to withdraw.” Id.
{¶9} Counsel for Frasure has asked this Court to review as a potential
assignment of error whether Frasure’s plea is invalid and whether his sentence is contrary
to law or is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
{¶10} “In order to enter a valid plea in a criminal case under the United States and
Ohio Constitutions, ‘the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.’”
State v. Garcia, 2021-Ohio-4480, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Engle,
74 Ohio St.3d
525, 527 (1996). The Ohio Supreme Court has often emphasized that “[t]he best way to
ensure that pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily is simply to follow the
requirements of Crim.R. 11 when deciding whether to accept a plea agreement.” State
v. Clark,
2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 29. The essential requirements for accepting a plea in a
felony case are: “(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with
understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if
applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of
community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing”; “(b) Informing the defendant of
and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no
contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and
sentence”; and “(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant
understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront
witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the
defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a
PAGE 4 OF 7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050
reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against
himself or herself.” Crim.R. 11(C).
{¶11} Our review of the plea hearing transcript indicates that the trial court fully
complied with the requirements of Criminal Rule 11 as well as advised Frasure that it
would not be bound by the jointly recommended sentence. Accordingly, we find no
grounds for holding the plea invalid.
{¶12} “The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record,
including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing
court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “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[,] … if it clearly and
convincingly finds … [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(b). “‘A sentence is contrary to law when it is “in violation of statute or legal
regulations,”’ such as where it falls outside of the statutory range for the offense or where
the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C.
2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Shoff, 2024-Ohio-
2406, ¶ 8 (11th Dist.).
{¶13} The 26-month sentence imposed on Frasure for OVI falls within the
statutory range for that offense as does the 14-month sentence imposed for Trespass in
a Habitation. With respect to consideration of the purposes and principles of sentencing,
the trial court’s pronouncement of sentence amply demonstrates that these were duly
considered:
Now, the Court [has] reviewed the presentence investigation reports
here. They’re extensive documents and they provide the Court with
PAGE 5 OF 7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050
much information here about you, Mr. Frasure. The Court is familiar
with the facts that led to the offenses pled to and further, the Court
had an opportunity to review your past criminal record. Now, and the
Court also had an opportunity here to read your statement that you
made, apologizing in the report. As it relates to past criminal record,
there’s a couple juvenile adjudications. At the adult level, the adult
record here it’s extensive. It begins in 2008, it includes multiple
misdemeanor convictions and felony convictions and it further
includes, multiple opportunities where, Mr. Frasure, you were placed
on community control. You violated those rules of probation and then
that resulted in probation violations and then you were ultimately sent
to prison. The Court [has] considered the purposes and principles of
the sentencing statutes, as the overriding purposes are to punish the
offenders and to protect the public from future crime. The Court [has]
considered recidivism and seriousness factors. … The OVI here in
this matter it’s a fourth-degree felony and so is a trespass in a
habitation. Two of the cases had victims. These are three separate
cases. … So the joint recommendation here between the State and
defense for community control, the Court will not be following that
recommendation. The Court finds that community control would
demean the seriousness of the conduct in these cases and its impact
upon any victims and would not adequately protect the public.
Therefore, a sentence of imprisonment is commiserate [sic] with the
seriousness of the defendant’s conduct. And a prison sentence does
not place an unnecessary burden on the State.
{¶14} Accordingly, we find no error in Frasure’s sentences.
{¶15} Frasure has not raised additional issues for review.
{¶16} Having considered counsel’s potential assignments of error and having
independently reviewed the record, we conclude that the present appeals are wholly
frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments of the Ashtabula
County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
PAGE 6 OF 7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s instant appeals are
wholly frivolous. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgments of the
Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
It is further ordered that the motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant filed by
Atty. Bensing is hereby granted.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE MATT LYNCH
PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 7 OF 7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050
