[Cite as State v. Dye, 2024-Ohio-3384.]

COURT OF APPEALS

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. Andrew J. King, J.

-vsCase Nos. 2024 CA 00009 & 

 2024 CA 00010

STEVEN DYE

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case Nos. 20 CR 327 & 

21 CR 119

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 3, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KYLE WITT CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY, ESQ.

Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney 9200 Montgomery Road, Suite 8A

Appellate Division Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

239 W. Main Street, Suite #101

Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2024 CA 00009 & 2024 CA 00010 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Steven T. Dye appeals the judgment entered by the 

Fairfield County Common Pleas Court revoking his judicial release and community control 

sanctions. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} Appellant was indicted in Common Pleas Court Case No. 2020 CR 0327 

with one count of robbery. He entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to a term of 

incarceration of four to six years. On March 4, 2022, he was granted judicial release.

{¶3} In Common Pleas Court Case No. 2021 CR 0119, Appellant was indicted 

with one count of felonious assault. He pled guilty to an amended charge of attempted 

felonious assault, and was sentenced to a five-year term of community control.

{¶4} Notice of violation of the terms of his judicial release and community control 

were filed in both cases. The notices alleged Appellant failed to report, received additional 

traffic and criminal charges, left a treatment facility, and tested positive for illegal 

substances. Appellant admitted to the violations at a consolidated revocation hearing. 

The trial court imposed the balance of his prison sentence in the robbery case, and 

imposed a twelve-month term of incarceration in the attempted felonious assault case. 

{¶5} It is from the February 20, 2024 judgment of the trial court revoking his 

judicial release Appellant prosecutes his appeal from Common Pleas Court No. 2020 CR 

0327, assigned Court of Appeals No. 24CA09. It is from the February 20, 2024 judgment 

of the trial court revoking his community control Appellant prosecutes his appeal from 

Common Pleas Court No. 2021 CR 0119, assigned Court of Appeals No. 24CA10. 

1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2024 CA 00009 & 2024 CA 00010 3

Appellant moved this Court to consolidate the appeals. This Court granted the motion, 

with 24CA09 being the controlling case number.

{¶6} Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388 U.S. 924, 

indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous. In Anders, the United States Supreme 

Court held if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant's counsel 

concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and 

request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a 

brief identifying anything in the record which could arguably support the appeal. Id. 

Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; 

and, (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters the client chooses. Id. Once 

the defendant's counsel satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully 

examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If 

the appellate court also determines the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's 

request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, 

or may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.

{¶7} We find counsel has complied with Anders. Appellant has not filed a pro se 

brief, and the State has not filed a response brief. Counsel sets forth one assignment of 

error which could arguably support the appeal:

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REVOKING 

DYE’S COMMUNITY CONTROL AND JUDICIAL RELEASE.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2024 CA 00009 & 2024 CA 00010 4

{¶8} In his proposed assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court abused 

its discretion in revoking Appellant’s judicial release and community control because 

following his release from prison, Appellant voluntarily completed a substance abuse 

treatment program. Counsel argues because both Appellant and the probation officer 

advised the trial court Appellant had difficulty adjusting to life outside of prison, ordering 

Appellant to return to prison would be counterproductive to helping Appellant address his 

substance abuse issues and to aiding him in learn to live outside of prison.

{¶9} We review a trial court’s decision revoking community control and/or judicial 

release under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-5801, ¶ 18 (5th 

Dist.); State v. Arm, 2014-Ohio-3771, ¶22 (3rd Dist.). 

{¶10} The trial court made the following findings on the record at the revocation 

hearing:

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dye, enough is enough. Holy smokes. You 

know, you are thirty-six years old. I look at your prison – your felony 

sentence. It’s horrific. You’ve done nothing really except for victimize 

people along the way. You’ve got two really serious offenses here in 

Fairfield County that you were on probation for. I ordered strict 

enforcement. That means that I needed you to dot your I’s and cross your 

T’s and do everything that was expected of you by your community control 

officer. And you did not do that. Not under any circumstances. You failed 

in a number of different ways.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2024 CA 00009 & 2024 CA 00010 5

{¶11} Revocation Tr. 20.

{¶12} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s 

community control and judicial release based on the number of violations in the instant 

case and his past criminal history.

{¶13} Accordingly, Appellant’s proposed assignment of error is overruled.

{¶14} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with Counsel's 

conclusion no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. Hence, 

we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant counsel's request to 

withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.

By: Hoffman, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

King, J. concur