[Cite as State v. Farris, 2019-Ohio-47.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 CLARK COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

LUKE FARRIS 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-55 

Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-13 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 11th day of January, 2019. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

ANDREW P. PICKERING, Atty. Reg. No. 0068770, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark 

County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

GARY C. SCHAENGOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0007144, 4 East Schantz Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 

45409 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

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

 

WELBAUM, P.J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Luke Farris, appeals from his conviction in the Clark 

County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to two counts of aggravated 

possession of drugs. On July 31, 2018, Farris’s appointed appellate 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), asserting the absence of any non-frivolous issues for appeal. On September 17, 

2018, this court notified Farris that his counsel found no meritorious claim to present on 

appeal and granted him 60 days to file a pro se brief assigning any errors. Farris, 

however, did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the entire record as prescribed by 

Anders, we find no issues with arguable merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial 

court will be affirmed. 

Facts and Course of Proceedings 

{¶ 2} On January 8, 2018, the Clark County Grand Jury returned an indictment 

charging Farris with two counts of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(A), both felonies of the fifth degree, and one count of illegally conveying drugs 

onto the grounds of a detention facility in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a felony of the 

third degree. The charges arose after a police officer discovered methamphetamine in 

Farris’s vehicle during a consensual search and thereafter on Farris’s person while he 

was in jail. 

{¶ 3} On March 14, 2018, Farris pled guilty to the two counts of aggravated 

possession of drugs as part of a negotiated plea agreement with the State. In exchange 

for Farris’s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the illegal conveyance charge. The 
-3- 

parties also agreed that a presentence investigation (“PSI”) would be conducted prior to 

Farris’s sentencing hearing. During Farris’s plea hearing, the trial court conducted a plea 

colloquy in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) and accepted Farris’s guilty plea. Per the 

parties’ agreement, the trial court also ordered a PSI. 

{¶ 4} On April 5, 2018, the trial court proceeded to sentencing. At the sentencing 

hearing, the trial court found that pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(xi), it had discretion 

to impose a prison term for Farris’s two aggravated possession of drugs offenses. 

Specifically, the trial court found that Farris committed one of the offenses while he was 

out on bond in an unrelated case originating in Miami County. The trial court also noted 

that it had reviewed the PSI, which indicated that Farris had several prior misdemeanor 

convictions for traffic related offenses, disorderly conduct, menacing, receiving stolen 

property, and possession of drugs. 

{¶ 5} The PSI also indicated that Farris had a history of substance abuse. Farris 

reported to the PSI examiner that in 2016 he completed a three-month residential 

rehabilitation program and a 90-day out-patient rehabilitation program. Farris also 

advised the trial court that he had been clean and sober for several months, but probably 

needed further treatment. 

{¶ 6} At the time of his sentencing, Farris was serving two consecutive 180-day jail 

terms for misdemeanor offenses committed in Miami County. After considering the PSI, 

the statements made by counsel and Farris, the purposes and principles of sentencing in 

R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court 

sentenced Farris to serve nine months in prison for each offense. The trial court then 

ordered those prison terms to be served concurrently to each other and concurrently to 
-4- 

the sentence Farris was serving in Miami County. The trial court also granted Farris “jail 

credit” from the date of his sentencing, “April 5, 2018 until conveyance to the penitentiary.” 

Judgment Entry of Conviction (Apr. 5, 2018), Clark C.P. No. 2018-CR-13, Docket No. 12, 

p. 1. 

Law and Analysis 

{¶ 7} As previously noted, Farris’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. According to Anders, this court 

must conduct an independent review of the record to determine if the appeal at issue is 

wholly frivolous. Id. at 744. “Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents 

issues lacking in arguable merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because 

the prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply, or because it is 

uncertain whether a defendant will ultimately prevail on that issue on appeal.” State v. 

Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. Rather, “[a]n issue 

lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be 

made that it offers a basis for reversal.” Id., citing State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery 

No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. 

{¶ 8} If we determine the appeal is frivolous, we may grant counsel’s request to 

withdraw and then dismiss the appeal without violating any constitutional requirements, 

or we can proceed to a decision on the merits if state law requires it. State v. McDaniel, 

2d Dist. Champaign No. 2010 CA 13, 2011-Ohio-2186, ¶ 5, citing Anders at 744. 

However, “[i]f we find that any issue presented or which an independent analysis reveals 

is not wholly frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the 
-5- 

defendant.” Marbury at ¶ 7, citing Pullen at ¶ 2. 

{¶ 9} In this case, Farris’s appellate counsel has not raised any potential 

assignments of error for our review. After conducting an independent review of the 

record pursuant to Anders, we agree with Farris’s appellate counsel that, based on the 

facts and relevant law, there are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

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

DONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Andrew P. Pickering 

Gary C. Schaengold 

Luke Farris 

Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter