[Cite as State v. Jones , 2021-Ohio-1920.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 20 CAA 09 0037 RUSSELL JONES Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 20 CRI 020131

JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 2, 2021

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellan t

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL APRIL F. CAMPBELL Delaware Count y Prosecutor Campbell Law, LLC 46 1⁄2 N. Sandusk y Stree t ELIZABETH A. MATUNE Delaware, Ohio 43015 Assistant Prosecuto r 70 N. Union Stree t RUSSELL JONES Delaware, Ohio 43015 Lake Erie Correctional Institute 501 Thompson Road Conneaut, Ohio 44030Delaware Count y , Case No. 20 CAA 09 0037 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Russell Jones appeals the judgment entered by the Delaware County Common Pleas Court convicting him of domestic v iolence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) upon a plea of guilty and sentencing him to fourtee n months incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} Appellant was indicted by the Delaware County Grand Jury with a bduction and domestic violence. The domestic violence charge was a four th degree felony because Appellant was previously convicted of domestic violence in Mount Vernon Municipal Court. {¶3} The case proceeded to a plea hearing based on a plea agreement. Appellant was to plead guilty to the charge of domestic violenc e, in return for which the State would dismiss the charge of abduction. {¶4} Appellant appeared by video conference at the plea hearing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The trial court entered into a plea colloqu y with Appellant. During the colloquy, Appellant claimed he never laid “one finger” on t he victim. The trial court asked about the possibility of an Alford plea due to Appellant’ s claim of innocence. The

State recommended the matter be set for trial. {¶5} The trial court asked the State to proffer facts. The State re ported Appellant became intoxicated on the date in question and got into an argu ment with the victim, during which he threatened to kill her, choked her, and smacked her across her face, throwing her to the ground. When the trial court asked Appella nt if those facts were accurate, Appellant r esponded affirmatively. When ask ed if he was being forced to enterDelaware Count y , Case No. 20 CAA 09 0037 3

a plea, Appellant stated, “Well, I’ll leave it at that, Your Ho nor. No one’s forcing me to do

this?” Plea Tr. 18. {¶6} Counsel for Appellant interjected, stating Appellant’s hesitati on was a result of the fact he was pleading guilty to domestic violence in orde r to avoid the larger penalty carried by the abduction charge. The State represented it was not willing to keep the plea agreement in place unless Appellant entered a plea of no contes t or guilty. {¶7} Appellant then spoke privately with counsel. When proceedings resumed on the record, counsel for Appellant told the court the evening in question was “not one of the great moments” of Appellant’s life, and Appellant wanted to make it clear his actions were “nowhere as mean-spirited and severe and questionable” as the victim alleged. Plea Tr. 21. Appellant stated he wanted to plead guilty. The court engaged in the Crim. R. 11 colloquy. The trial court reiterated to Appellant he was pleading guilty to causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the victim by choking a nd slapping her. He agreed he was conceding to those facts. The trial court found Appellant guilty of domestic violence based on his plea, and the State dismissed the charge of abduction. {¶8} The matter was set for sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, Appellant apologized to the court and the victim. He told the court he h ad been studying the law with respect to the underlying conviction which elevated the in stant conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony, and he believed his earlier conviction could not be used as enhancement because he entered a plea of no contest to that cha rge. He stated he raised this matter to his attorney, and his attorney was “basic ally working against me.” Sent. Tr. 26. The trial court imposed a fourteen month sentenc e for domestic violence,Delaware Count y , Case No. 20 CAA 09 0037 4

and imposed a sentence of twelve months for a community control violation, which is not the subject of this appeal. {¶9} Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den ., 388 U.S. 924, indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous. {¶10} In Anders , the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientiou s examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and request permissio n to withdraw. Id . at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying any thing in the record which could arguably support the appeal. Id . Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and, (2) allow the c lient sufficient time to raise any matters the client chooses. Id . Once the defendant's counsel satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the procee dings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate cour t also determines the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or may proceed t o a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id

. {¶11} Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief identifying four arguably meritorious issues in the record: the trial court erred in accepting Appel lant’s plea, the trial court erred in sentencing, trial counsel was ineffective, and the trial cou rt erred in allowing Appellant to appear by videoconference. {¶12} Appellant has filed a pro se brief, arguing the trial court err ed in accepting his plea, the trial court did not inform him of his right to be present in the courtroom forDelaware Count y , Case No. 20 CAA 09 0037 5

sentencing, the judge falsified a judgment entry of his prison sentence, trial counsel was ineffective, and appellate counsel should not have filed an Anders brief. {¶13} We find Appellant's counsel has followed the procedures requir ed by

Anders

. {¶14} After independently reviewing the record and considering the is sues raised in the brief filed by Appellate counsel and those raised by App ellant’s pro se brief, we agree with Counsel's conclusion no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. Hence, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous und er Anders , grant counsel's request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Delaware Co unty Court of Common

Pleas.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Delaney, J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur