[Cite as State v. Wolfe, 2021-Ohio-1672.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ERIC WOLFE 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 28925 

Trial Court Case No. 2020-CR-1494 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 14th day of May, 2021. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

KIRSTEN KNIGHT, Atty. Reg. No. 0080433, P.O. Box 137, Germantown, Ohio 45327 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

WELBAUM, J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Eric Wolfe, appeals from an order revoking his 

community control sanctions and imposing sentence. On February 9, 2021, Wolfe’s 

assigned counsel 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 there are no issues with arguable merit 

to present on appeal. Counsel raised one potential assignment of error concerning the 

fact that the sentence was contrary to law, but found no arguable merit in that claim. 

{¶ 2} On February 11, 2021, we notified Wolfe that his counsel found no 

meritorious claims for review, and we granted him 60 days to file a pro se brief assigning 

any errors. However, Wolfe did not file a pro se brief. 

{¶ 3} Also on February 11, 2021, the State filed a response to the Anders brief and 

said it would not respond to Wolfe’s brief because no arguable issues were raised. The 

State did ask for time to respond if we decided that appealable issues existed and 

appointed new counsel for Wolfe. 

{¶ 4} After reviewing the entire record, including the presentence investigation 

(“PSI”) report, and conducting our independent Anders review, we find no issues with 

arguable merit for Wolfe to advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial 

court will be affirmed. 

II. Facts and Course of Proceedings 

{¶ 5} On May 29, 2020, an indictment was filed in the trial court charging Wolfe 

with having committed domestic violence against Teri S. Because Wolfe had two prior 

domestic violence convictions (in July 2002 and in August 2019), the offense was 

elevated to a third-degree felony. Wolfe pled not guilty to the charge, counsel was 
-3- 

appointed, and bond was set at $15,000 (surety bond). On June 19, 2020, Wolfe’s initial 

counsel was granted leave to withdraw due to the Covid pandemic and counsel’s inability 

to visit with Wolfe in jail. New counsel was appointed for Wolfe the same day. 

{¶ 6} On June 25, 2020, Wolfe filed a motion for a bond reduction, but the court 

continued the bond as previously set. Subsequently, on July 9, 2020, Wolfe appeared 

in court and pled guilty, based on the State’s agreement to reduce the charge to the lesser 

included offense of domestic violence with one prior conviction, a felony of the fourth 

degree. During the plea hearing, the court advised Wolfe of his constitutional rights and 

also fully complied with the requirements of Crim.R.11(C)(2) for accepting pleas. After 

accepting Wolfe’s guilty plea, the court found him guilty of the offense as charged and 

ordered that a PSI be conducted. Transcript of Proceedings (“Tr.”), Plea Hearing, p. 3-

10. An entry of waiver and plea was then filed on July 13, 2020. 

{¶ 7} The sentencing hearing was held on July 23, 2020, at which time the court 

sentenced Wolfe to up to five years of community control sanctions (CCS), conditioned 

on Wolfe’s compliance with several conditions. Tr., Sentencing Hearing, at p. 14-15. 

These conditions included that Wolfe would: (1) comply with the court’s general conditions 

for probationers; (2) undergo intensive supervision with a domestic violence specialist for 

a period not to exceed five years; (3) complete treatment at Nova House and comply with 

the agency’s further recommendations; (4) obtain and maintain verifiable employment or 

provide verification of inability to work; (5) have no contact with the victim, Teri S., or come 

within 1,000 feet of her person, residence, or place of employment; (6) attend and 

complete the Stop the Violence program; (7) attend and complete domestic violence 

counseling as the probation officer deemed appropriate; (8) abstain from the use of illegal 
-4- 

drugs of abuse and alcohol; and (9) not be in places where he had reasonable cause to 

know that illegal drugs, stolen property, or firearms were present. Id. The court also 

warned Wolfe that if he violated any sanction or left the state without permission, the court 

could impose a longer time under the same sanction, impose more restrictive sanctions, 

impose 12 months in jail or the MonDay Program, or impose a prison term of 18 months. 

Id. at p. 16. 

{¶ 8} The judgment entry, which included the community control sanctions and 

potential prison sentence, was filed on July 24, 2020. Wolfe did not appeal from the 

judgment. 

{¶ 9} On July 27, 2020 (or only four days after the sentencing hearing), the court 

filed an order suspending the probationary period for community control and ordering a 

capias for Wolfe. In the order, the court noted that Wolfe’s probation officer had 

represented that Wolfe’s whereabouts had been unknown since July 23, 2020. The 

police then arrested Wolfe on July 30, 2020, and filed a return of warrant the following 

day. 

{¶ 10} On August 9, 2020, a Notice of CCS Revocation Hearing and Order was 

filed, and Wolfe was ordered to appear on August 13, 2020. The notice alleged that 

upon being released from jail, Wolfe went to Teri S.’s residence and damaged her 

property, a violation of Sanction #6. The notice further alleged that Wolfe had failed to 

report to the probation department as ordered and was declared an absconder on July 

27, 2020. The trial court then held hearings on August 13, 2020 and September 3, 2020. 

During the first hearing, Wolfe acknowledged receipt of the revocation notice, waived the 

formal reading of the notice, waived the probable cause hearing, and entered a general 
-5- 

denial. Tr. at p. 17. 

{¶ 11} On September 3, 2020, Wolfe acknowledged receipt of the revocation 

notice, waived the formal reading of the notice, waived the probable cause hearing, and 

admitted that he had violated Rules #5 and #6, with the understanding that he would be 

receiving a sanction of attending the MonDay Program. Tr. at p. 29. At that time, Wolfe 

had been accepted into the program. Id. After finding that Wolfe had knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily admitted to the violations, the court held that a violation had 

occurred and added the MonDay Correctional Institution as a sanction. Id. at p. 21. The 

court then filed an order on September 8, 2020, modifying the community control 

sanctions to require that Wolfe attend the MonDay program. 

{¶ 12} Shortly thereafter, on September 21, 2020, the court filed another Notice of 

CCS Revocation Hearing and Order. This time, the notice alleged that Wolfe had 

violated Sanction #10 by failing to complete the MonDay program. Specifically, Wolfe 

self-terminated from the program on September 16, 2020. Id. at p. 1. The court again 

held a hearing, during which Wolfe acknowledged receipt of the revocation notice, waived 

the probable cause hearing, and entered an admission that he had violated Sanction #10. 

Tr. at p. 22. During the hearing, Wolfe expressed agreement with serving a 12-month 

prison sentence, with jail credit of 121 days. Id. Wolfe further agreed that his admission 

to the violation was being made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Id. 

{¶ 13} The trial court then found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wolfe 

had violated the terms and conditions of community control. Id. at p. 23. The court 

therefore revoked community control, sentenced Wolfe to 12 months in prison, and gave 

Wolfe 121 days of jail credit for time served. Id. at p. 23-24. The court then filed a 
-6- 

termination entry on September 27, 2020, revoking Wolfe’s community control and 

sentencing him to 12 months in prison, with jail credit of 121 days. Wolfe timely appealed 

from the judgment on September 30, 2020. 

II. Discussion and Conclusion 

{¶ 14} In an Anders review, we are required to decide “after a full examination of

all the proceedings,” whether an appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84-85, 109 S.Ct. 

346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Issues are not frivolous simply because the State “can be 

expected to present a strong argument in reply.” State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery 

No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Instead, an issue will lack arguable merit “if on the 

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

reversal.” Id. 

{¶ 15} After conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders, 

we agree with Wolfe’s appellate counsel that, based on the facts and relevant law, there 

are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Specifically, Wolfe stipulated to 

both violations of community control and was sentenced to a prison term that he had been 

warned of after he refused to comply with community control sanctions. Wolfe’s defiance 

of the sanctions was obvious, and it occurred in both cases almost immediately after the 

sanctions were imposed. 

{¶ 16} As indicated, Wolfe’s counsel raised a potential assignment of error 

concerning whether the sentence was contrary to law, but found no merit in this claim. 

Again, we agree. 
-7- 

{¶ 17} “A sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range 

for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony 

sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” 

State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, 99 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Pawlak, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103444, 2016-Ohio-5926, ¶ 58. Accord State v. Derrick, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 28878, 2021-Ohio-1330, ¶ 22. 

{¶ 18} Here, the 12-month sentence was within the statutory range of six to 18 

months for a fourth-degree felony and was below the maximum penalty. R.C. 

2929.14(A)(4). The trial court also complied with the requirement of considering the 

purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors 

in R.C. 2929.12. See Sentencing Tr. at p. 23. While the court did not specifically make 

findings or give reasons for imposing more than a minimum sentence, there was no 

requirement to do so. E.g., State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021, 992 N.E.2d 491, ¶ 45 (2d 

Dist.). . 

{¶ 19} Furthermore, the PSI report revealed that Wolfe had a very long history of 

criminal offenses dating back to the early 1980s. These crimes involved 16 alcohol and 

drug-related misdemeanor convictions as well as a 2017 felony conviction for aggravated 

possession of drugs. Wolfe’s criminal history also included convictions for domestic 

violence, menacing, and trespassing, among others. Many of the convictions resulted in 

suspension of most of Wolfe’s jail time, which obviously did not work to prevent future 

crime. In fact, in November 2019, Wolfe was convicted of menacing (reduced from 

aggravated menacing) in a case involving the victim here, Teri S. Any prior sanctions 

clearly did not deter Wolfe from committing domestic violence against Teri S. several 
-8- 

months later in 2020, nor did the sanctions imposed in this case deter Wolfe from 

returning to Teri S.’s residence the same day that he was released from jail. There is no 

doubt that community control sanctions did not prevent Wolfe from committing crimes. 

{¶ 20} Based on the preceding discussion, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

HALL, J. and EPLEY, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

Andrew T. French 

Kirsten Knight 

Eric Wolfe 

Hon. Gerald Parker