[Cite as State v. Simmons,
2025-Ohio-514.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-A-0041
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
JULIUS DEVON SIMMONS,
Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00415
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: February 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).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Julius Simmons, appeals the sentencing entry issued following
his guilty plea to one count of involuntary manslaughter, a first-degree felony, and one
count of obstructing justice, a third-degree felony. We affirm.
{¶2} In 2022, Simmons was indicted on one count of Murder, one count of
Felonious Assault, one count of Discharge of a Firearm on or near Prohibited Premises,
and Obstructing Justice. On November 17, 2023, Simmons entered a plea of guilty to an
amended indictment of Involuntary Manslaughter and Obstructing Justice. The remaining
charges were dismissed as a part of a plea agreement for Simmons to cooperate with the
State in a separate case, Case No. 2022-CR-0416.
{¶3} The State and defense counsel agreed on a stipulated sentence of an 11 to
16 and one-half year term of imprisonment for the Involuntary Manslaughter count, to run
concurrently with 36 months of incarceration for the Obstructing Justice count. Therefore,
the total sentence would be 11 to 16 and one-half years with a credit of 630 days. The
trial court followed the stipulated sentence.
{¶4} Defense counsel submitted a notice of appeal and then moved to withdraw
from the case. The motion was granted, appellate counsel was appointed, and then
appellate counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
claiming that “any assignments of error listed in this brief would be frivolous if presented
to this Court.” In this brief, counsel also requested to withdraw as counsel and clarified
that the brief would be sent to Simmons explaining the nature of the Anders brief.
{¶5} This court issued an order holding appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw
in abeyance and providing Simmons time to file a submission, if desired, to raise
additional arguments in support of the instant appeal. Simmons did not do so.
{¶6} When assessing Anders briefs, we look to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), where the United States Supreme Court outlined the proper steps to be
followed 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
2
Case No. 2024-A-0041
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.
Id. at 744.
State v. Spears,
2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.).
{¶7} Here, appellate counsel raises two potential assignments of error: “(1) did
the Trial Court abuse its discretion when it imposed a maximum sentence upon the
Appellant; and (2) did the Trial Court commit error by imposing indefinite sentences.”
After a thorough and independent review of the record, we find appellate counsel’s
potential assignments of error are without merit because it was within the trial court’s
discretion to impose a maximum sentence upon the appellant and indefinite sentences
have been held constitutional.
{¶8} At the plea hearing, the trial court informed Simmons’ that he was entering
a plea with a stipulated sentence, 11 to 16 and one-half years in prison to run concurrently
with 36 months in prison. The court clarified that typically a recommendation is not binding
on the trial court, but with a stipulated sentence, “that would be the sentence you’re going
to get.” At sentencing, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence under R.C. 2953.08.
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1): “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.”
{¶10} Further, even assuming the sentence was not jointly recommended and
imposed, it would be authorized by law because it is within the statutory range provided
by R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(a) and 2929.144(B)(1). Additionally, judges have full discretion to
impose sentences within statutory range. State v. Mathis, 2006-Ohio-855, paragraph
3
Case No. 2024-A-0041
three of the syllabus; see State v. Stacy, 2023-Ohio-3942, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.). Because the
sentence was authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed by the trial court,
Simmons’ sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08. Therefore, the
appellant’s first potential assignment of error is without merit.
{¶11} Additionally, the second issue is also without merit. The Ohio Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of indefinite sentencing, as provided under R.C.
2967.271. State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, ¶ 41; see State v. Smith,
2024-Ohio-3369,
¶ 37-40 (11th Dist.) (holding that counsel’s assignment of error had no merit when
questioning the constitutionality of an indefinite sentence for a felony of the first degree).
Here, Simmons was properly sentenced under R.C. 2967.271 because he pleaded to
Involuntary Manslaughter, a first degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A). Therefore,
the assignment of error is without merit.
{¶12} After an independent review, the only other argument appellate counsel
could have raised was that Simmons did not enter his plea knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily. This argument is based on Simmons reading a part of the Rule 11 colloquy,
instead of the trial court reading it. This is also without merit. See State v. Weir, 2018-
Ohio-2827, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.) (“The fact that appellant read portions of his written plea
agreement into the record and verified his understanding, rather than the trial court
reading the rights to appellant, does not, under the circumstances of this case, raise any
presumption that appellant entered his guilty plea unknowingly or involuntarily.”).
{¶13} Like in Weir, Simmons read part of the Rule 11 colloquy and the trial court
stopped him several times to affirm that he understood what he was reading, asked if he
4
Case No. 2024-A-0041
had any questions, and ensured that Simmons knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
gave up the rights he read. Therefore, this argument would also be without merit.
{¶14} 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.). After a thorough and
independent review of the record, including transcripts of the proceedings and appellate
counsel’s brief, we hold that there were no arguable legal points on the merits. Therefore,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court
of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
5
Case No. 2024-A-0041
