[Cite as State v. Jones , 2020-Ohio-9.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee

v. TIMOTHY JONES Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-31

Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-571 (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 3rd day of January, 2020.

. . . . . . . . . . . JOHN M. LINTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0097715, Assistant Prosecuting At torney, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Spring field, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee BRYAN SCOTT HICKS, Atty. Reg. No. 0065022, P.O. Box 359, Lebano n, Ohio 45036 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

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

WELBAUM, P.J.-2- {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Timothy Jones, appeals from his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A), the revocat ion of his community control sanctions, and his sentence. On August 30, 2019, Jones ’ 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), indicating there are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Jones’ appellate counsel raised two potential assignments of er ror for review. {¶ 2} On September 12, 2019, we notified Jones that his appellate cou nsel found no meritorious claim for review and granted him 60 days to file a pro se brief assigning any errors. Jones, however, did not file a pro se brief. {¶ 3} After conducting an independent review of the entire record as required by

Anders , including the presentence investigation report, we find no is sues of arguable merit for Jones to advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgmen t of the trial court will be

affirmed.

Pertinent Facts and Course of Proceedings {¶ 4} On November 21, 2016, the Clark County Grand Jury indicted Jone s on two offenses: having weapons under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)), a felony of the third degree, and carrying a concealed weapon (R.C.2923.12(A)), a fel ony of the fourth degree. On May 3, 2017, Jones entered a plea of guilty to the carrying a concealed weapon charge. In exchange, the State dismissed the more serio us charge of having weapons under disability. {¶ 5} At Jones’ plea hearing, the trial court fully complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) for accepting pleas. Sentencing was held on M ay 24, 2017, and Jones-3- was placed on community control sanctions for a period of five years. The trial court advised Jones that if he violated the terms of his community co ntrol he could be sentenced to a prison term of 18 months. The special condition s of his community control included that Jones would serve 180 days of local incar ceration and that he would be required to obey federal, state, and local laws. Dkt. No. 1 3, p. 3-4. {¶ 6} On December 21, 2017, the trial court found that Jones had viol ated the terms of his community control by failing to report to the jail as ordered. The trial court added 60 days to Jones’ jail sentence as a sanction and once ag ain notified Jones that a violation would result in a prison sentence of 18 months. That violation and sanction was appealed and affirmed by this court on October 12, 2018. State v. Timothy L. Jones , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-10, 2018-Ohio-4143. {¶ 7} On July 13, 2018, Jones was convicted after a jury trial of pos session of a deadly weapon while in detention (R.C. 2923.313(B)), a fifth-de gree felony, in Clark C.P. No. 2010-CR-45. Five days later, the trial court sentenced Jon es to a prison term of 12 months. That conviction was appealed and affirmed by this cour t on April 26, 2019. State v. Timothy Jones , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-94, 2019-Ohio-1548. The conviction

was the result of conduct committed while Jones was under commu nity control sanctions

in this case. {¶ 8} After the necessary preliminary proceedings, on April 1, 2019, a hearing was held to determine whether Jones’ community control sanctions sh ould be revoked. Since Jones admitted to violating the terms of his community co ntrol, the trial court found that Jones violated its terms and conducted a sentencing hearin g pursuant to R.C. 2929.19. The trial court then sentenced Jones to a prison term of 18 months with 183-4- days of jail-time credit, and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to the 12- month sentence previously imposed in Case No. 2010-CR-45. Ther eafter, Jones filed a timely notice of appeal. Dkt. No. 39, p. 2.

Discussion and Conclusion {¶ 9} In an Anders review, we are required to decide “after a full examination of all the proceedings,” whether an appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 84-85, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Issues are not frivolous simply b ecause the State “can be expected to present a strong argument in reply.” State v. Pullen , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Instead, an issue will lack ar guable merit “if on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made t hat it offers a basis for

reversal.” Id

. {¶ 10} After conducting an independent review of the record pursuant t o Anders , we agree with Jones’ appellate counsel that, based on the facts and relevant law, there are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Jones’ appellate counsel suggested that two potential non-frivolous issues may be: (1) w hether the trial court erred by making the sentence consecutive instead of concurrent; and ( 2) that Jones allegedly

did not understand his sentence. {¶ 11} At sentencing, the trial court considered that Jones had commit ted a felony while on community control and that during the new felony, he p ossessed a shank while in jail. The trial court also considered the fact that Jones h ad a lengthy criminal history since 1996. Jones’ criminal history included convictions for s everal offenses of violence-5- including assault, negligent assault, domestic violence, and ag gravated assault. The

trial court also noted that Jones had been convicted of crimina l damaging, escape, and possession of drugs. The trial court further expressed concern that Jones’ community control sentences had been previously revoked. Probation Viola tion Hearing Trans. (Apr. 1, 2019), p. 14. {¶ 12} The trial court made all of the necessary findings supporting t he imposition of consecutive sentencing at the hearing and in the correspondi ng sentencing entry. Id

. at p. 15; Dkt. No. 39, p. 2. Although appellate counsel surmis ed that Jones did not fully understand his sentence, there was clearly no error in that reg ard. The trial court clearly stated the sentence on the record at the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry. {¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the potential issues ra ised by appellate counsel have no arguable merit. After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders , we also find no issues with arguable merit for Jones to advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial cour t is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . FROELICH, J. and HALL, J., concur.

Copies sent to:

John M. Lintz Bryan Scott Hicks Timothy Jones Hon. Richard J. O’Neill