[Cite as State v. Tate, 2015-Ohio-5170.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff- Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2014-CA-126 

 : 

v. : T.C. NO. 14CR540 

 : 

JAMES TATE, III : (Criminal appeal from 

 : Common Pleas Court) 

 Defendant - Appellant : 

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

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the ___11th___ day of _ _December_____, 2015. 

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

RYAN A. SAUNDERS, Atty. Reg. No. 0091678, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E. 

Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 

 Attorney for the Plaintiff-Appellee 

P.J. CONBOY II, Atty. Reg. No. 0070073, 5613 Brandt Pike, Huber Heights, Ohio 

45424 

 Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant 

JAMES M. TATE, III, Inmate # 709794, London Correctional Institute, P.O. Box 69, 

London, Ohio, 43140 

 Defendant-Appellant 

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

DONOVAN, J. 

{¶ 1} James M. Tate, III was originally charged by indictment with one count of 

felonious assault on a peace officer with a firearm specification, a felony of the first 
2 

degree, in violation of R.C. § 2903.11(A)(2), one count of discharge of a firearm on or 

near prohibited premises, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. § 

2923.162(A)(3), and one count of having weapons under disability, a felony of the third 

degree, in violation of R.C. § 2923.13(A)(3). 

{¶ 2} On September 15, 2015, Tate entered a guilty plea pursuant to North 

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to one count of 

felonious assault on a peace officer, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. § 

2903.11(A)(2). In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the firearm 

specification of count one and counts two and three of the indictment. Prior to accepting 

Tate’s plea of guilty pursuant to Alford, the trial court engaged Tate in a thorough dialogue 

regarding the significance of an Alford plea and a thorough Crim. R. 11 colloquy, and 

the trial court found Tate’s pleas were entered in a knowing and voluntary fashion. The 

plea transcript reflects the prosecutor’s recitation of the facts supporting the indictment 

and the trial court’s finding of guilty. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation 

and scheduled the sentencing disposition for October 2, 2014. 

{¶ 3} On October 2, 2014, Tate appeared for sentencing. The trial court 

sentenced Tate to a term of seven years imprisonment to be served consecutive to a term 

of four years mandatory imprisonment for one count of possession of cocaine, Clark Cty. 

C.P. Case No. 14-CR-04081. In determining the sentence to be imposed, the trial court 

considered the pre-sentence investigation report and statements by counsel and 

Appellant. The trial court set out the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. § 

 

1

Tate has not filed a direct appeal of this case.
3 

2929.12 that applied to the case, and further found consecutive sentences were 

appropriate under R.C. § 2929.14(C)(4). Specifically, the trial court found the factors in 

both R.C. § 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and R.C. § 2929.14(C)(4)(c) supported consecutive 

sentences. The Court’s findings are reflected in Tate’s Judgment entry of conviction. 

See State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659. Finally, the 

trial court sentenced Tate to a period of five years of post release control after completion 

of the sentence of the trial court as required under R.C. § 2929.14(D)(1). 

{¶ 4} Tate filed a pro se notice of appeal on October 31, 2014. Additionally, 

counsel was appointed to prosecute the appeal. On May 11, 2015, appointed counsel 

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

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he represented to us that after review of the record he could 

find no arguably meritorious issues to present on appeal. By magistrate’s order on July 

22, 2015, we informed Tate that his counsel had filed an Anders brief and the significance 

of an Anders brief. We invited Tate to file a pro se brief assigning any error for our review 

within sixty days of July 22, 2015. Tate has not filed anything with this Court. 

{¶ 5} Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, we have conducted an 

independent review of the entire record, and having done so, we agree with the 

assessment of appointed counsel that there are no arguably meritorious issues to present 

on appeal. 

{¶ 6} Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. 

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

FAIN, J. and HALL, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 
4 

Ryan A Saunders 

P.J. Conboy II 

James M. Tate, III 

Hon. Richard J. O’Neill