[Cite as State v. Perrin, 2023-Ohio-1962.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO

Appellee

v.

JASON E. PERRIN

Appellant

C.A. No. 30413

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

ENTERED IN THE

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO

CASE No. CR-2021-04-138613

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 14, 2023

SUTTON, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jason Perrin, appeals his conviction and sentence following 

a guilty plea taken by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms. 

I.

Relevant Background

{¶2} Mr. Perrin was indicted on three counts of trafficking in: (1) a fentanyl-related 

compound; (2) heroin; and (3) cocaine, felonies of the first degree, with major drug offender, 

firearm, and forfeiture specifications. Mr. Perrin was also indicted on three counts of possession 

of: (1) a fentanyl-related compound; (2) heroin; and (3) cocaine, felonies of the first degree, with 

major drug offender specifications. Mr. Perrin originally pleaded not guilty to the indictment. 

However, after the State agreed to amend the charges, Mr. Perrin pleaded guilty to three counts of 

trafficking in: (1) a fentanyl-related compound; (2) heroin; and (3) cocaine, felonies of the second 
2

 

degree, with firearm and forfeiture specifications, and three counts of possession of: (1) a fentanylrelated compound; (2) heroin; and (3) cocaine, felonies of the second degree. 

{¶3} The parties further agreed to merge certain counts/specifications and to an 

aggregate sentence of 8-years imprisonment. The trial court accepted the parties’ recommendation 

and sentenced Mr. Perrin to a mandatory 1-year sentence on the firearm specification to be served 

consecutively with an agreed indefinite term of a minimum of not less than 7 years and a maximum 

of not more than 10 1⁄2 years, which is a mandatory prison term. 

{¶4} Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mr. Perrin’s counsel filed a 

motion for leave to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief. Consistent with the guidelines set 

forth in Anders, supra, Mr. Perrin’s counsel asserted that, after a review of the record, he was 

unable to find any issues that might support an appeal. Anders at 744. The record reveals Mr. 

Perrin was served with a copy of his counsel’s brief, and this Court afforded Mr. Perrin the 

opportunity to raise arguments after review of the Anders brief. Mr. Perrin, however, has not 

responded to his counsel’s Anders brief or raised any additional arguments for our review. 

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE TRIAL COURT’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND 

CONVICTION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW. 

 

{¶5} Upon the filing of an Anders brief, this Court conducts a full examination of the 

proceedings to decide whether the case is “wholly frivolous.” State v. Baldwin, 9th Dist. Summit 

No. 29176, 2019-Ohio-2542, ¶ 4. 

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 an 

appellant will ultimately prevail on that issue on appeal. “An issue lacks arguable 
3

 

merit if, on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that 

it offers a basis for reversal.”

Id., quoting State v. Moore, 2d Dist. Greene No. 07-CA-97, 2009-Ohio-1416, ¶ 4, quoting State v. 

Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. “If this Court’s independent review 

reveals that any issue presented is not wholly frivolous or that there are other arguable issues, we 

must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the appellant.” Baldwin at ¶ 4, citing Pullen

at ¶ 2.

{¶6} In the Anders brief, counsel identified one possible issue for appeal, but concluded 

it was not viable. Specifically, counsel stated, “[Mr. Perrin’s] counsel is unable to identify any 

issues in the indictment, the plea colloquy, or the sentencing of [Mr. Perrin].” Further, counsel 

asked this Court to review: “(1) [w]hether the [t]rial [c]ourt’s [a]cceptance of the [g]uilty [p]lea 

and [c]onviction was [c]ontrary to [l]aw; (2) [w]hether the [g]uilty [p]lea [w]as [t]aken in 

[a]ccordance with [l]aw; (3) [s]ufficiency of [t]he [i]ndictment; [and] (4) [w]hether the [s]entence 

[i]mposed was [r]easonable.” 

{¶7} Subsequent to this Court’s own full, independent examination of the record, 

including the indictment, plea, and sentencing transcripts, we agree there are no appealable, nonfrivolous issues in this case. Specifically, the indictment was sufficient, the plea was taken in 

accordance with law, and the sentence was reasonable and not contrary to law. See Baldwin at ¶ 

8; see also State v. Randles, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23857, 2008-Ohio-662, ¶ 6. Thus, pursuant to 

Anders, supra, Mr. Perrin’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous. 

{¶8} Accordingly, this Court grants Mr. Perrin’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

affirms the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. 
4

 

III.

{¶9} For the reasons stated above, Mr. Perrin’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 

The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period 

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to 

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the 

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

BETTY SUTTON

FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.

HENSAL, J.

CONCUR.
5

 

APPEARANCES:

TY A. GRAHAM, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.