[Cite as State v. Schirmer , 2012-Ohio-5543.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case Nos. 25147 Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case Nos. 25148 : v. : Trial C ourt Case Nos. 2011-CR-3171 : Trial Court Case Nos. 2011-CR-2545 STANLEY D. SCHIRMER : : (Criminal Appeal from Defendant-Appellant : ( Common Pleas Court) :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 30 th day of November, 2012.

. . . . . . . . . . . MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. #0020084, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appe llate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee MELISSA REPLOGLE, Atty. Reg. #0084215, Repl ogle Law Office, LLC, 2312 Far Hills Avenue, #145, Dayton, Ohio 45419 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . . FAIN, J. {¶ 1} In these two appeals, defendant-appella nt Stanley Schirmer appeals from his 2

 convictions and sentences, in tw o indicted cases, for two counts of Theft, and one count of Burglary, following guilty pleas in each case. Sc hirmer’s appointed appella te counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), indicating that she has not been able to find any potential assignments of error having arguable merit. After performin g an independent review of th e record, we have not found any potential assignments of error having arguable merit, either. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court in both of these cases are Affirmed.

I. The Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} In Case No. 2011-CR-3171 in th e trial court, Schirmer wa s indicted for Theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), of property lis ted in R.C. 2913.71 (checks belonging to Wanda Morgan), a felony of the fift h degree; for five counts of Fo rgery, in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), felonies of the fifth degree; and, in a separate indictment , for Theft of currency having a value of $500 or more from Fifth Third Bank, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). Case No. 25147 in this court is his appeal from the judgment in that case. {¶ 3} In Case No. 2011-CR-02545 in the trial court, Schirmer was indicted for Burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a fe lony of the third degree. Case No. 25148 in this court is his appeal from the judgment in that case. {¶ 4} In the Burglary case, Schirmer moved for a competency evaluation and pled not guilty by reason of insanity. A competency evaluation was ordered; it appears that a competency hearing was held; and the tr ial court found Schirmer co mpetent to stand trial. {¶ 5} Eventually, Schirmer and the State en tered into a plea bargain covering both 3

 cases. Schirmer agreed to plead guilty to the two Theft charges and the Burglary charge; the State agreed to dismiss the five Forgery charges, and to cap Schirmer’s total sentence at eighteen months. The trial court held a plea hearing c overing both cases, accepted the pleas, and ordered a pre-sentence investigation. {¶ 6} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Schirmer to twelve months – the maximum – on each of the Theft offenses, and to eighteen months (the maximum sentence being 36 months) for the Burglary offense, with all sentences to be served concurrently, for a total sentence of eighteen months. The trial c ourt also ordered restitution in the amount of $480 to James Zadbell, the victim of the Burglary, a nd in the amount of $615 to Fifth Third Bank, the
victim of one of the Theft offens es. Schirmer did not object to the amount of restitution ordered. {¶ 7} From his convictions and se ntences, Schirmer appeals.

II. No Potential Assignments of Error Having Arguable Merit Found {¶ 8} Assigned counsel having filed an Anders brief, this court afforded Schirmer the opportunity to file his own, pro se brief, by entry dated Augu st 22, 2012. He has not done so. {¶ 9} We have independently reviewed the en tire record of both appeals. The plea hearing was conducted in full comp liance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The trial court specifically advised Schirmer that by pleading guilty he would be giving up the ability to challenge any pre-trial rulings on appeal. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Schirmer did not understand the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. {¶ 10} The sentence imposed was consistent with the agreement that Schirmer’s total sentence would be capped at eight een months. The specific sentences imposed for the charges to 4

 which Schirmer pled guilty were authorized by 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. 86, which applied to him because he was sentenced after its effective date. Because the trial court did not impose consecutive sentences, it was not required to make the findings specified in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). {¶ 11} We find no arguable merit to a claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, or an abuse of discretion. Without consecutive se ntencing, the maximum sentence available was thirty-six months, for Burglary; the aggregate sent ence imposed was eighteen months, half of that maximum. We have reviewed the pre-sentence i nvestigation report. It reflects that Schirmer has been convicted of misdemeanor offenses seventeen times, and th at he has been convicted of felony offenses, before these, twelve times, including four previous Burglaries and four previous Thefts, the most recent of which was in 2008. Th e trial court referred to Schirmer’s extensive criminal record when imposing sentence, and noted that when probation and community control sanctions have been imposed, they have generally been unsuccessf ul, which is reflected in the pre-sentence investigation report. {¶ 12} We conclude that the record in thes e two appeals does not support any potential assignments of error ha ving arguable merit.

III. Conclusion {¶ 13} This court having found no potential assignments of erro r having arguable merit, in either appeal, the judgments of the tr ial court in Case No s. 2011-CR-3171 and 2011-CR-02545 are Affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . GRADY, P.J., and HALL, J., concur.[Cite as State v. Schirmer , 2012-Ohio-5543.] Copies mailed to: Mathias H. Heck Carley J. Ingram Melissa Replogle Hon. Mary K. Huffman