[Cite as State v. Knight, 2016-Ohio-8297.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 104675

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ROBERT KNIGHT

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

DISMISSED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-14-582971-A and CR-15-601601-A 

BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., Boyle, J., and Laster Mays, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 22, 2016 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Steve W. Canfil 

55 Public Square 

Suite 2100 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

Also listed:

Robert Knight 

Inmate No. 683538 

Richland Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 8107 

Mansfield, OH 44905 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
TIM McCORMACK, P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert Knight appeals the trial court’s judgment in 

Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-14-582971-A and CR-15-601601-A. Knight’s appointed 

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has requested leave to withdraw as counsel in accordance with 

Loc.App.R. 16. 

{¶2} Knight was indicted for escape, drug possession, and receiving stolen 

property in Case No. CR-14-582971-A. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to the amended 

charges of attempted escape, drug possession, and attempted receiving stolen property. 

The court sentenced Knight to two years of community control sanctions. Knight was 

later charged in a six-count indictment for three counts of felonious assault, one count of 

aggravated menacing, and two counts of criminal damaging or endangering in Case No. 

CR-15-601601-A. He entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of attempted 

aggravated assault, criminal damaging, and aggravated menacing, and the remaining 

charges were dismissed. The court sentenced Knight to two years of community control 

sanctions. Based upon his conviction in CR-15-601601-A, the court found Knight to be 

in violation of his community control sanctions in CR-14-582971-A and continued 

Knight’s community control. Subsequently, Knight violated his community control in 

both cases and the court terminated Knight’s community control. The court then 

imposed a prison sentence of 12 months in CR-14-582971-A and 9 months in 

CR-15-601601-A, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate prison term of 21 months. 
{¶3} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel, after a 

conscientious examination of the case, concludes that the appeal is “wholly frivolous,” 

counsel may advise the court of that fact and request permission to withdraw from the 

case. Anders at 744. This request, however, must “be accompanied by a brief 

identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. 

Further, counsel must furnish the client with a copy of the brief and allow the client 

sufficient time to file his or her own brief, pro se. Id.

{¶4} Here, appointed counsel fully complied with the requirements of Anders 

and Loc. App. R. 16(C). Counsel filed an Anders brief and provided that he served his 

brief upon his client. This court held counsel’s motion to withdraw in abeyance and 

granted Knight leave until October 17, 2016, in which to file a pro se brief. To date, 

Knight has failed to file a brief on his own behalf. 

{¶5} In counsel’s Anders brief, counsel stated that he thoroughly reviewed the 

record, including the transcripts of the proceedings, and determined that there were no 

prejudicial errors or nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. Specifically, counsel (1) 

reviewed the record for compliance with Crim.R. 11 relative to the requirements that the 

pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and found no deviations from Crim.R. 11; 

and (2) considered the sentencing proceedings and found no prejudicial sentencing errors. 

{¶6} In accordance with Anders, once appellant’s counsel satisfied the foregoing 

requirements, this court then examines the proceedings below to determine if any 

meritorious issues exist. If we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may grant 
counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional 

requirements, or we may “proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires.” 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. If, however, the court finds 

any legal points arguable on their merits, it must afford the appellant assistance of counsel 

before deciding the merits of the case. Id.

{¶7} Pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16 and Anders, this court has conducted an 

independent examination of the record to determine if there are any legal issues of 

arguable merit. Upon a complete review of the record, this court agrees that no 

prejudicial error occurred in the lower court, and any appeal on Knight’s behalf would be 

frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. 

{¶8} Appeal dismissed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR 
KEY WORDS: 

State v. Knight, Appeal No. 104675 

Anders brief; Loc.App.R. 16; withdraw; dismiss. Appointed counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed where appointed counsel filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 

(1967), and Loc.App.R. 16 asserting there are no legal issues of arguable merit to raise on 

appeal, and this court agreed, following an independent review of the record.