[Cite as State v. Groves, 2015-Ohio-4757.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsMICHAEL S. GROVES 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 15-COA-017 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Common 

Pleas Court, Case No. 12-CRI-030 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 17, 2015 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL MATTHEW J. MALONE 

Ashland County Prosecutor Law Offfices of Matthew J. Malone, LLC 

EMILY M. BATES 10 East Main Street 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Ashland, Ohio 44805 

110 Cottage Street, Third Floor 

Ashland, Ohio 44805 

 
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-017 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Michael S. Groves, was indicted on three counts of Importuning 

in violation of R.C. 2707.07(B), all felonies of the fifth degree and one count of 

Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles in violation of R.C. 2907.31(A)(1), a 

misdemeanor of the first degree. 

{¶2} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant plead guilty to count one 

(Importuning, a felony of the fifth degree) and count four (Disseminating Matter Harmful 

to Juveniles, a misdemeanor of the first degree). The State agreed to dismiss counts 

two and three. 

{¶3} Appellant received a sentence of 180 days of local incarceration on the 

Importuning count as part of a community control sanction. Further, Appellant received 

180 days of jail on the Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles count, however, 90 of 

those days were suspended. 

{¶4} Eventually, Appellant was charged with violating the terms of his 

community control. Appellant agreed with three of the four violations including failure to 

report to his supervising officer, a curfew violation and possession of a cell phone. 

Following Appellant’s stipulation to the community control violations, the trial court 

imposed a twelve month prison sentence giving Appellant credit for time served. 

{¶5} Counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, rehearing den. (1967), 388 U.S. 924, 

indicating that the within appeal was wholly frivolous and setting forth one proposed 

Assignments of Error. Appellant has not raised any additional assignments of error pro 

se. 
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-017 3

{¶6} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious 

examination of the record, a defendant’s counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous, 

then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. 

Counsel must accompany his request with a brief identifying anything in the record that 

could arguably support his client’s appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client 

with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and, (2) allow his client sufficient time 

to raise any matters that the client chooses. Id. Once the defendant’s counsel satisfies 

these requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to 

determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines 

that the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and 

dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or may proceed to a 

decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id. 

{¶7} Counsel in this matter has followed the procedure in Anders v. California 

(1967), 386 U.S. 738. 

POTENTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

I. 

{¶8} “WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S SENTENCE IMPOSED ON 

APPELLANT FOR VIOLATING HIS COMMUNITY CONTROL WAS CLEARLY AND 

CONVINCINGLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION.” 

{¶9} We now will address the merits of Appellant’s potential Assignment of 

Error. 
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-017 4

I. 

{¶10} In her first potential Assignment of Error, Appellant challenges the 

sentence imposed by the trial court. 

{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court has established a two-step analysis for 

reviewing a felony sentence. State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008–Ohio–4912. The 

first step is to “examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and 

statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and 

convincingly contrary to law.” Id. at ¶ 4. The second step requires the trial court's 

decision to be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. 

{¶12} We find the sentence imposed was not clearly and convincingly contrary 

to law. The sentence in this case was imposed within the statutory range provided in 

R.C. 2929.14. 

{¶13} Having reviewed the sentence, the presentence investigation report, and 

the sentencing factors found in R.C. 2929.12 we also do not find the trial court abused 

its discretion in imposing the sentence in this case. 

{¶14} Appellant’s proposed assignment of error is overruled. 
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-017 5

{¶15} For these reasons, after independently reviewing the record, we agree 

with counsel's conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base 

an appeal. Hence, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant 

counsel's request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Ashland County Court of 

Common Pleas. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Farmer, J. and 

Delaney, J. concur