State v. Bolduc

[Cite as State v. Bolduc, 

.]


                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                      LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


  STATE OF OHIO,                               Case No. 2024 CA 00101

  Plaintiff - Appellee                         Opinion And Judgment Entry

  -vs-                                         Appeal from the Licking County Common Pleas
                                               Court, Criminal Division, Case No. 2024 CR
  CHRISTOPHER BOLDUC,                          00605

  Defendant – Appellant                        Judgment: Affirmed

                                               Date of Judgment Entry:September 8, 2025



BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate
Judges

APPEARANCES: ERIC M. DEPUE, for Plaintiff-Appellee; KAITLYN A. O'HARA, for
Defendant-Appellant.




                                             OPINION

Montgomery, J.

         {¶1}    This matter comes before this Court upon the request of appellate counsel

to withdraw as counsel and Appellant’s Anders Brief filed by Attorney Kaitlyn A. O’Hara,

counsel for Appellant Christopher Bolduc (hereinafter “Bolduc’) filed on March 14, 2025.

An Entry stating that Bolduc was supplied with a copy of the Anders brief and his right to

file a pro se brief was filed with the trial court on March 28, 2025.

         {¶2}    Bolduc has not filed a pro se brief.

         {¶3}    The State of Ohio has not filed a reply brief.
                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶4}   This case arises from two separate incidents wherein Bolduc stole property

from two different locations.

       {¶5}   The first incident occurred when Bolduc stole a bike and a backpack from

W.F.’s garage.

       {¶6}   The second incident occurred when Bolduc stole a base guitar from the

garage of P.V.

       {¶7}   Bolduc was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury on August 28, 2025,

on the following counts:

       Count One: Breaking and Entering, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A)

       Count Two: Breaking and Entering, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A).

       {¶8}   Bolduc was arraigned on September 3, 2024, and entered pleas of not guilty

to the charges contained in the indictment.

       {¶9}   On December 18, 2024, Bolduc verbally entered into a plea of no contest

and signed an Entry of No Contest Plea.

       {¶10} A Judgment of Conviction and Sentence was filed with the court on

December 18, 2024. Per the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, Bolduc was found

guilty of two counts of breaking and entering and sentenced to nine months on each

count. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total stated

prison term of eighteen (18) months. Id., pp. 2, 3.
                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶11} The procedure to be followed by appointed counsel who desires to withdraw

for want of a meritorious, appealable issue is set forth in Anders v. California, 

. The U.S. Supreme Court found if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after

a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission

to withdraw. 

. This request must be accompanied by a brief identifying

anything in the record that could arguably support the appeal. 

 In addition, counsel

must furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw and allow the client

sufficient time to raise any matters the client so chooses. 

       {¶12} The appellate court must conduct a full examination of the proceedings and

decide if the appeal is indeed wholly frivolous. 

 If the appellate court determines the

appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. 

                       Proposed Potential Assignment of Error

       {¶13} “I.    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING BOLDUC’S NO

CONTEST PLEAS UNDER CRIM. R. 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING HIM.”

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶14} Criminal Rule 11 governs pleas and rights of defendants during a

sentencing. Crim.R. 11(C)(2) states:

       In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no

       contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing

       the defendant personally either in-person or by remote contemporaneous video in

       conformity with Crim.R. 43(A) and doing all of the following:
      (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.

      (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 reasonable doubt at a trial at which the

      defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.

      {¶15} In the case at hand, during the sentencing hearing Bolduc was asked the

following questions by the Court:

            a) Do you understand that if you plead No Contest, if the allegations in

               the Indictment are sufficient to charge you with an offense, then I

               have to find you guilty?” Change of Plea and Sentencing Transcript,

               p. 9.

            b) Do you understand that by pleading No Contest, that means you’re

               giving up your right to have a trial? 

            c) Do you understand what the potential penalties could be for each

               offense? 

          d) Do you understand that if you’re sent to prison, then you would be

              subject to serve a period of post release control supervision also?

              Id., p. 10.

          e) Do you understand that if you violate that supervision, then you could

              be sent back to prison for up to one-half of the sentence originally

              imposed in the case? Id.

          f) [d]o you understand that by pleading No Contest, you’ll be giving up

              your right to have a jury of 12 people determine your guilt or

              innocence? Id., p. 11.

       {¶16} Bolduc answered in the affirmative to each of the Court’s questions and

several other questions the Court asked regarding his rights.

       {¶17} Bolduc and his attorney both made allocution statements to the trial court

prior to the court imposing its sentence.

       {¶18} The Court stated, “I’ve considered the statements of the parties, the

overriding purposes of felony sentencing, the relevant seriousness, the recidivism factors.

… I simply cannot find that you’re amenable to community control or probation. That

means I’m going to send you to prison.” Id., p. 24.

       {¶19} The Court went on to say, “I impose consecutive terms because I find that

the imposition of concurrent terms would demean the seriousness of the offense and they

are not disproportionate.” Id., p. 25.

       {¶20} The trial court, “considered the record, the statements of the parties, any

victim impact statement and Pre-sentence Investigation Report prepared, as well as the

purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the
seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” Judgment of Conviction and

Sentence, p. 2.

       {¶21} The trial court also found, “Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the Court orders

that the sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 2 be served consecutively to each other

because the Court finds that consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public from

future crime, and to punish the offender; and that consecutive sentences are not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the

offender poses to the public.” Id., p. 3.

       {¶22} Based upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we find that the

trial court did not abuse its’ discretion in accepting Bolduc’s plea of No Contest. This Court

also finds that Bolduc was sentenced within the statutory range. We find no arguably

meritorious issues exist with respect to whether Bolduc’s sentence was contrary to law.

                                       CONCLUSION

       {¶23} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel's

conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. We

therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders.

       {¶24} Attorney Kaitlyn A. O’Hara's motion to withdraw as counsel for Bolduc is

hereby granted.
      {¶25} The Judgment of Conviction and Sentence of the Licking County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

      {¶26} Costs to Appellant.

By: Montgomery, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

King, J. concur.