[Cite as State v. Hall,
2025-Ohio-2923.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-A-0105
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
CHRISTIAN FRANK RAY HALL,
Trial Court No. 2024 CR 00214
Defendant-Appellant.
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).
Sean P. Martin, 113 North Chestnut Street, Suite A, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Christian Frank Ray Hall, appeals the sentencing
entry issued by the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to
one second-degree felony. We affirm.
{¶2} Hall was indicted on one count of improperly discharging a firearm at or into
a habitation or a school safety zone, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2923.161(A)(1), with an accompanying firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A).
Hall entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he agreed to plead guilty to
the felony offense and the State agreed to dismiss the firearm specification. The plea
agreement also included a stipulated indefinite sentence, under R.C. 2953.08, of a two-
year minimum up to a three-year maximum prison term. The trial court accepted the plea
agreement on September 23, 2024, and imposed the stipulated sentence on November
26, 2024. The sentencing entry was journalized on November 27, 2024.
{¶3} Defense counsel submitted a notice of appeal from the sentencing entry
and then moved to withdraw from the case. We granted the motion to withdraw and
appointed appellate counsel. Appellate counsel then submitted a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) based on his conclusion that “the appeal does not
present a nonfrivolous legal question.” Appellate counsel moved to withdraw as counsel
of record and stated that he had provided Hall with a copy of the brief and a letter
explaining the nature of the brief.
{¶4} Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s guidance in Anders, this
court historically has adhered to the following procedure in this situation:
(1) counsel should act in the role of active advocate for his client;
(2) counsel should support his client to the best of his ability; (3) if counsel
finds his client’s case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should advise the court
and request permission to withdraw; (4) the request to withdraw must be
accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support the appeal; (5) 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; (6) the court, not counsel, proceeds and
decides whether the case is frivolous after full examination of all the
proceedings.
State v. Spears, 2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.), citing
Anders at 744.
{¶5} Effective as of July 1, 2025, our Local Rules no longer permit appellate
counsel to file no-merit briefs. See Eleventh Dist. Loc.R. 16(F) (“Briefs filed pursuant to
Anders v. California, 380 U.S. 738 (1967) will not be accepted. Counsel must file a merit
brief, unless the appellant directs counsel that the appeal should be withdrawn.”).
PAGE 2 OF 5
Case No. 2024-A-0105
However, because counsel filed the no-merit brief in this case prior to the rule change,
we issued an order holding in abeyance appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and
providing Hall time to file a submission, if desired, to raise additional arguments in support
of the instant appeal. After this order was returned as non-deliverable, we issued a
second order providing Hall with another 30 days to file a pro se submission. This order
was not returned, but Hall has not filed any additional arguments in support of his appeal.
{¶6} Counsel identifies as a potential assignment of error that the trial court erred
by imposing an indefinite sentence. However, as counsel observes, the Supreme Court
of Ohio has upheld the constitutionality of indefinite sentencing in State v. Hacker, 2023-
Ohio-2535. Counsel further recognizes that Hall did not object to the imposition of the
stipulated sentence, the sentence was within the statutory range for a second-degree
felony, and there was no obvious error in the proceedings that would constitute plain error.
{¶7} Counsel also identifies as a potential assignment of error that the trial court,
prior to imposing the stipulated sentence, did not specifically discuss the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing or the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.11
and 2929.12. Counsel correctly notes, however, that the trial court is not required to make
specific findings on the record to comport with its statutory obligation to consider the R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 factors. E.g., State v. Lamb, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.).
{¶8} Moreover, “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review
. . . 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). “The General Assembly intended a jointly agreed-upon sentence to be
protected from review precisely because the parties agreed that the sentence is
PAGE 3 OF 5
Case No. 2024-A-0105
appropriate. Once a defendant stipulates that a particular sentence is justified, the
sentencing judge no longer needs to independently justify the sentence.” State v.
Porterfield, 2005-Ohio-3095, ¶ 25. Hall’s sentence was authorized by law, was
recommended jointly by him and the prosecution, and was imposed by a sentencing
judge. Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Hall’s sentence is not subject to appellate review.
{¶9} Having conducted a full examination of the proceedings in this case,
including transcripts of the plea colloquy and sentencing hearing, we conclude that the
appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. When “the appellate court
determines there are no meritorious issues, it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw as
counsel and affirm the trial court’s decision.” State v. Miller,
2007-Ohio-5206, ¶ 6 (11th
Dist.).
{¶10} We therefore grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
trial court’s judgment entry of sentence.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 4 OF 5
Case No. 2024-A-0105
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, it is the judgment and order of
this court that the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
It is further ordered that Attorney Sean P. Martin’s motion to withdraw as counsel
for appellant is hereby granted.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,
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 5 OF 5
Case No. 2024-A-0105
