[Cite as State v. Henderson,
2025-Ohio-5018.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State of Ohio, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 24AP-669
v. : (C.P.C. No. 23CR-6608)
Joshua J. Henderson, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellant. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on November 4, 2025
On brief: Shayla D. Favor, Prosecuting Attorney, and
Kimberly M. Bond, for appellee.
On brief: Blaise G. Baker, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
BOGGS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua J. Henderson, appeals from a July 24, 2024
judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to 36
months in prison following a guilty plea to the charge of violating a protection order, a
violation of R.C. 2919.27, a felony of the third degree. Before this court is a brief filed by
Henderson’s counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the
following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On December 29, 2023, Henderson was indicted on one count of violating a
protection order in violation of R.C. 2919.27, a felony of the third degree; one count of theft
in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a felony of the fifth degree; and receiving stolen property in
violation of R.C. 2913.51, a felony of the fifth degree. On January 8, 2024, Henderson
entered a plea of not guilty to the counts in the indictment.
No. 24AP-669 2
{¶ 3} On June 6, 2024, Henderson changed his plea from not guilty to guilty on the
count of violating a protection order. The state nolled the counts of theft and receiving
stolen property.
{¶ 4} At the June 6, 2024 hearing where Henderson changed his plea, the state
provided a statement of the facts which led to Henderson’s indictment. The state proffered
that S.D. stated on December 18, 2023, at approximately 12:00 a.m., she was contacted by
Henderson, despite her having a civil protection order against him. S.D. stated that
Henderson then came over to her apartment and demanded to be let in, threatening that
he would shoot at the door if she did not let him in. S.D. said that she let Henderson in and
was with him until around 8:30 a.m. when she left the apartment as Henderson went to use
the bathroom. S.D. told officers that she went to a grocery store and attempted to call
Henderson’s probation officer and her landlord. She later called the police at 1:30 p.m.
When S.D. returned to her apartment with police officers, a large flat screen TV had been
smashed and a few of her belongings were missing. Henderson was arrested later that day
and was found with a stolen handgun and numerous items with S.D.’s name on them,
including mail, credit cards, her ID, and medications.
{¶ 5} At the change of plea hearing, the trial court engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
The trial court confirmed that Henderson had discussed his change of plea with his
attorney, and that he understood the maximum possible prison sentence, possible fines,
and parole supervision he faced for a third-degree felony. Henderson also confirmed he
understood he was giving up his right to a trial and that he knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waived these rights.
{¶ 6} On July 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Henderson to 36 months in the
custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and imposed restitution
in the amount of $500.
II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 7} Though Henderson filed a timely appeal from the judgment of the trial court,
his appellate counsel has submitted an Anders brief on his behalf, in which he certifies that,
having conscientiously examined the record, this appeal is frivolous and presents no issues
of arguable merit. Henderson’s counsel simultaneously filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel, which we have previously granted.
No. 24AP-669 3
{¶ 8} This court has set forth appellate counsel’s responsibility when filing an
Anders brief as follows:
In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if, after
a conscientious examination of the record, appellate counsel
concludes that a defendant’s case is wholly frivolous, counsel
should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.
Counsel must accompany the request to withdraw with a brief
outlining anything in the record that arguably could support
the defendant’s appeal. Counsel must also: (1) furnish the
defendant with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and
(2) allow the defendant sufficient time to raise any matters the
defendant chooses.
(Internal citation omitted.) State v. Hudson, 2019-Ohio-5136, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.); see also
State v. Albert,
2019-Ohio-1012, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 9} Appellate counsel has elected to file an Anders brief and has not identified
any potential assignments of error for review. In accordance with Anders, counsel
furnished Henderson with a copy of the brief, which included counsel’s request for
permission to withdraw from the case. See Anders at 744. Since the filing of the Anders
brief, we have afforded Henderson sufficient time to file a supplemental brief, however,
Henderson has not done so.
{¶ 10} When an appellant does not file a pro se brief in response to an Anders brief,
a reviewing court must still examine any potential assignments of error and the entire
record below to determine if the appeal lacks merit. Albert at ¶ 11, citing State v. A.H., 2017-
Ohio-7680, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Cooper,
2009-Ohio-6275 (10th Dist.). “After
full review of the proceedings below, if the appellate court finds only frivolous issues on
appeal, it then may proceed to address the merits of the case without affording the
defendant the assistance of counsel.”
Hudson at ¶ 9. If, however, the reviewing court finds
that there are non-frivolous issues for appeal, the court must provide the appellant the
assistance of counsel to address those issues.
Id.
{¶ 11} Given that Henderson pled guilty, we only have before us the change of plea
hearing and sentencing transcripts, which include scant factual details. Our examination
of the limited record, however, has not revealed any non-frivolous issues for appeal. At the
June 6, 2024 plea hearing, the trial court underwent a thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy to
No. 24AP-669 4
ascertain that Henderson was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily changing his plea
and waiving his rights to a jury trial.
{¶ 12} We similarly do not find any non-frivolous issue in Henderson’s sentencing.
R.C. 2919.27 provides that a violation of “a protection order or consent agreement while
committing a felony offense . . . is a felony of the third degree.” R.C. 2919.27(B)(4). For a
third-degree felony, the maximum penalty is three years in prison and a discretionary
period of post-release control of up to three years but no less than one year. R.C.
2929.14(A)(3)(b), (D)(2); R.C. 2967.28(B)(4). In sentencing Henderson to 36 months in
prison and giving notice that, after being released from prison, he may be subject to a period
of post-release control of up to three years, the trial court imposed a legal sentence. (June 6,
2024 Plea and Sentencing Tr. at 3-4.)
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 13} After our own independent review of the record, we cannot find any non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BEATTY BLUNT, J., concurs.
DORRIAN, J. concurs in judgment only.
