[Cite as State v. Bruce, 2012-Ohio-3494.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2012 CA 6 

v. : T.C. NO. 08CR729, 08CR843 

JAYE BRUCE : (Criminal appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 : 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 3rd day of August , 2012. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0074332, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 55 Greene 

Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

SAMUEL J. WARDEN, Atty. Reg. No. 0087918, 7588 Central Parke Blvd., Suite 131, 

Mason, Ohio 45040 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

JAYE BRUCE, #595857, London Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140 

Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

DONOVAN, J. 
2

{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Jaye Bruce, 

filed 

January 17, 2012. Counsel for Bruce filed his appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting an inability to find any 

meritorious claim to present for review. This Court granted Bruce 60 days in which to file a 

pro se brief assigning any errors for review, and Bruce did not file a brief. The State did not 

file a response to the Anders brief. 

{¶ 2} On December 1, 2008, Bruce pled guilty to one count of escape, in 

violation of R.C. 2921.34, a felony of the second degree, and one count of failure to 

periodically verify current address, in violation of R.C. 2950.06(F), also a felony of the 

second degree. Bruce received a four year agreed sentence on each count, to be served 

concurrently. On December 15, 2011, the trial court resentenced Bruce, pursuant to State v. 

Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, providing correct notice, 

prior to his release from prison, of the terms of postrelease control as part of his sentence. 

This appeal arises from his resentencing. 

{¶ 3} This Court previously noted, in State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. No. 19226, 

2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 7-8: 

We are charged by Anders to determine whether any issues involving 

potentially reversible error that are raised by appellate counsel or by a 

defendant in his pro se brief are “wholly frivolous.” * * * If we find that any 

issue presented or which an independent analysis reveals is not wholly 

frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the 
3

defendant. * * * 

Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues 

lacking in arguable merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely 

because the prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in 

reply, or because it is uncertain whether a defendant will ultimately prevail on 

that issue on appeal. An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law 

involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for 

reversal. * * * 

{¶ 4} In his initial sentencing hearing, the transcript reflects that while the court 

advised Bruce that he was subject to a mandatory three year period of postrelease control, 

the court did not advise him that the mandatory three years applied to both of his 

convictions. In Fischer, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “when a judge fails to impose 

statutorily mandated postrelease control as part of a defendant’s sentence, that part of the 

sentence is void and must be set aside.” Id., ¶ 26. The Court concluded as follows: 

* * * [V]oid sentences are not precluded from appellate review by 

principles of res judicata and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or 

by collateral attack. We further hold that although the doctrine of res 

judicata does not preclude appellate review of a void sentence, res judicata 

still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the 

determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence. The 

scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing in which a mandatory term of 

postrelease control is imposed is limited to issues arising at the resentencing 
4

hearing. Id., ¶ 40. 

{¶ 5} A thorough review of the transcript of Bruce’s resentencing hearing 

reveals that, after providing the parties with an opportunity to be heard, the court notified 

Bruce that post release control is mandatory for three years on both the conviction of escape 

and the conviction of failure to periodically verify current address. Furthermore, Bruce 

was advised of the consequences for violating the conditions of post release control imposed 

pursuant to R.C. 2967.28. 

{¶ 6} No issues involving potentially reversible error were raised by appellate 

counsel or by Bruce, and having thoroughly completed our independent analysis pursuant 

to Anders, we are unable to find any meritorious issues for further review, and we 

accordingly decline to appoint different appellate counsel to represent Bruce. The judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

GRADY, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Elizabeth A. Ellis 

Samuel J. Warden 

Jaye Bruce 

Hon. Stephen A. Wolaver