[Cite as State v. Swope, 2023-Ohio-3529.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

BRANDON ROBERT SWOPE,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-A-0012

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00604

O P I N I O N

Decided: September 29, 2023

Judgment: Affirmed

Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, 

OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Adam Parker, The Goldberg Law Firm, LLC, 323 West Lakeside Avenue, Suite 450, 

Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Brandon Robert Swope, appeals the sentencing entry issued 

following Swope’s guilty plea to one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle, a fourthdegree felony. We affirm.

{¶2} In 2022, Swope was indicted on the sole count of grand theft of a motor 

vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5). Swope initially pleaded not guilty 

but thereafter amended his plea to guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, whereby the 

parties stipulated to a sentence of 18 months of imprisonment, to be served concurrently 
2

Case No. 2023-A-0012

with sentences imposed in separate cases. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed 

the stipulated sentence.

{¶3} Defense counsel noticed an appeal from the sentencing entry and then 

moved to withdraw. The trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, and 

this court appointed counsel for Swope’s appeal. Thereafter, appointed appellate counsel 

submitted an Anders brief asserting he was unable to find any prejudicial errors in the trial 

court proceedings. Consequently, counsel moved for leave to withdraw. This court 

issued an entry on May 25, 2023, holding appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw in 

abeyance and providing Swope 30 days to file his own submission, if he so chose, raising 

arguments in support of his appeal. Swope has not submitted any issues for our review.

In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 

493 (1967), the United States Supreme Court outlined the 

proper steps to be followed in this situation: (1) counsel should 

act in the role of active advocate for his client; (2) counsel 

should support his client to the best of his ability; (3) if counsel 

finds his client’s case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should 

advise the court and request permission to withdraw; (4) the 

request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief referring 

to anything in the record that might arguably support the 

appeal; (5) counsel should furnish the indigent client with a 

copy of counsel’s brief, and time must be allowed for the client 

to raise any points he chooses; (6) the court, not counsel, 

proceeds and decides whether the case is frivolous after full 

examination of all the proceedings. Id. at 744.

State v. Spears, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0027, 2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5.

{¶4} Here, appellate counsel has not specifically identified any potential error, 

but has stated that “[g]iven this appeal involves a guilty plea and a stipulated sentence, 

the only remaining issue for appeal would be compliance with Crim.R. 11. Based on the 

colloquy conducted by the trial court, it appears to [appellate counsel] that Crim.R. 11 was 
3

Case No. 2023-A-0012

complied with, and any argument about compliance with the rule would be wholly 

frivolous.”

{¶5} We agree. “A valid guilty plea by a counseled defendant * * * generally 

waives the right to appeal all prior nonjurisdictional defects[.]”

(Citation omitted.) State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474. 

Accordingly, Swope may not challenge on appeal a non-jurisdictional issue arising prior 

to entering the plea. Although Swope is not precluded from challenging the validity of his 

plea and the trial court’s adherence to Crim.R. 11, such a challenge would be frivolous 

based upon the record in this case for the reasons that follow. 

{¶6} Crim.R. 11 “‘ensures an adequate record on review by requiring the trial 

court to personally inform the defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea 

and determine if the plea is understandingly and voluntarily made.’” State v. Dangler, 162 

Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, 164 N.E.3d 286, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Stone, 43 Ohio 

St.2d 163, 168, 331 N.E.2d 411 (1975); see also State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 107, 

564 N.E.2d 474 (1990).

{¶7} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides:

In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty 

* * * and shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without first 

addressing the defendant personally either in-person or by 

remote contemporaneous video in conformity with Crim.R. 

43(A) and doing all of the following:

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea 

voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges 

and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that 

the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition 

of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.

(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the 

defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty * * *, and 
4

Case No. 2023-A-0012

that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with 

judgment and sentence.

(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the 

defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is 

waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against 

him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining 

witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to 

prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a 

trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify 

against himself or herself.

{¶8} “When a criminal defendant seeks to have his conviction reversed on 

appeal, the traditional rule is that he must establish that an error occurred in the trial-court 

proceedings and that he was prejudiced by that error.” (Citations omitted.) Dangler at ¶ 

13. In the context of guilty pleas, the Ohio Supreme Court has noted two exceptions to 

the rule that a defendant must establish prejudice. Id. at ¶ 14-16. First, “[w]hen a trial 

court fails to explain the constitutional rights that a defendant waives by pleading guilty * 

* *, we presume that the plea was entered involuntarily and unknowingly, and no showing 

of prejudice is required.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 14. Second, “a trial court’s complete 

failure to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11(C) eliminates the defendant’s burden to 

show prejudice.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 15. 

{¶9} Here, the transcript indicates that, at the change-of-plea hearing, the trial 

court personally informed Swope of certain Crim.R. 11(C)(2) advisements and also

instructed Swope to read portions of the plea agreement aloud, including the portion of 

the agreement indicating the constitutional rights Swope was waiving by pleading guilty. 

Intermittently, the trial court inquired if Swope had any questions regarding what he read, 

if he understood what he read, and if he agreed to what he read. Swope indicated he 

had no questions and affirmed his understanding of, and agreement to, the provisions he 
5

Case No. 2023-A-0012

read. See State v. Weir, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2017-A-0039, 2018-Ohio-2827, ¶ 14

(“The fact that appellant read portions of his written plea agreement into the record and 

verified his understanding, rather than the trial court reading the rights to appellant, does 

not, under the circumstances of this case, raise any presumption that appellant entered 

his guilty plea unknowingly or involuntarily.”). There is no indication from the record that 

Swope’s plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered, or that he suffered 

any prejudice, i.e., that he would not otherwise have entered his plea if the court had 

advised him differently. 

{¶10} The trial court then imposed the stipulated sentence. Pursuant to R.C. 

2953.08(D)(1): “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this 

section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the 

defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” As 

such was the case here, Swope’s sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08.

{¶11} Accordingly, having independently reviewed the entire record, we find no 

nonfrivolous issues for consideration.

{¶12} Therefore, appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the 

judgment is affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.