Court Opinion

ID: 9905884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:10:50.476965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:57.575218
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4315.]
                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                      Nos. 112567, 112568,
                 v.                               :        112569, and 112570

EMMANUEL SMITH,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 30, 2023

           Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
          Case Nos. CR-20-653312-A, CR-21-657772-A, CR-22-676597-A, and
                                  CR-22-676598-A

                                            Appearances:

                 Jonathan N. Garver, for appellant.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J.:

                   Defendant-appellant, Emmanuel Smith (“Smith”), appeals from the

trial court’s sentencing following his guilty plea in four separate cases. Smith’s

appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel. Smith, who

was served with counsel’s motion on May 31, 2023 and given until July 18, 2023 to
respond, did not file a pro se brief in this appeal. Following a review of the record,

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

I.    Facts and Procedural History

      {¶2} This appeal comes from Smith’s convictions and sentences in four

separate cases1 that have been consolidated for the purposes of this decision. On

August 31, 2021, Smith entered guilty pleas in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. 653312 and

657772. In 653312, Smith pleaded guilty to amended Count 1, attempted domestic

violence, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), and assault on a

peace officer, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). In 657772,

Smith pleaded guilty to amended Count 2, domestic violence, a fourth-degree

felony, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Smith failed to appear for sentencing, and

a capias was issued.

      {¶3} On February 9, 2023, Smith entered guilty pleas in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos.

676597 and 676598. In 676597, Smith pleaded guilty to having weapons while

under disability, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). In

676598, Smith pleaded guilty to grand theft, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of

R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), and amended Count 2, attempted failure to comply with order

or signal of a police officer, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B).

1 Smith pleaded guilty to four cases in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court including

CR-20-653312-A, CR-21-657772-A, CR-22-676597-A, and CR-22-676598-A.
On March 23, 2023, Smith appeared in court for sentencing on all four cases. He

was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment.

      A.     Case No. 653312

      {¶4} On April 3, 2020, Smith was accused of beating a woman with a stick

in the middle of the street. When police officers arrived, Smith threw the woman

out of the front door of a house and refused officers’ commands that he exit the

home. Smith told the officers that they would have to shoot him. Eventually, Smith

left the home in his own car and officers did not pursue him. The victim also

claimed that Smith held her head under a faucet.

      {¶5} On September 19, 2020, police officers responded to an address for a

loud noise complaint. They realized that Smith was the occupant in the home and

that he had an open and active warrant for his arrest. Officers attempted to arrest

Smith, and Smith began fighting the officers. Smith ripped an officer’s badge and

body camera off of one officer’s uniform. He also hit the officers. The officers were

able to get Smith in the patrol car, where he attempted to kick out the door and

window of the vehicle.

      B.     Case No. 657772

      {¶6} On February 21, 2021, the victim claims that she went to Smith’s home

to collect money owed to her by Smith. When Smith opened the door, he told her

to get off of his porch, head-butted her twice, and broke her nose. The victim ran

to her car, and Smith pursued her. He punched her in the mouth and broke the
side-view mirror on her vehicle. The victim called and reported the incident to the

police.
      C.    Case No. 676598

      {¶7} On November 4, 2021, officer observed Smith moving out of a home,

and attempted to conduct a traffic stop because of his outstanding warrants. Smith

refused to stop, and officers ended the pursuit because there was a no-pursuit

policy. Later that day the officer observed him at his new home. While the officers

were at the front door, Smith slipped out of the rear of the home, jumped into a

police car, and fled in the police car. Officers eventually found the police car,

abandoned with the keys still in the car.

      D.    Case No. 676597

      {¶8} On December 21, 2022, officers were patrolling Smith’s neighborhood

and observed Smith driving and then parking the vehicle. Officers were notified

that Smith had numerous warrants, so officers notified major crime detectives who

responded and followed Smith to the store. Detectives apprehended Smith at the

store and retrieved a firearm from the Smith’s vehicle.

      E.    Sentencing

      {¶9} Smith pleaded guilty to amended and originally indicted offenses. At

sentencing, the trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing

under R.C. 2929.11; the seriousness and recidivism factors relative to the offense

and offender pursuant to R.C. 2929.12; and the need for deterrence,

incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution. Tr. 73. The trial court also found

that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crimes
or to punish Smith and that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to

the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to

the public. Tr. 76. The trial court also found that Smith committed one or more of

the multiple offenses while he was waiting for sentencing in other cases. He failed

to appear for sentencing, and a capias was issued. Tr. 77.

II.   Anders Review

      {¶10} On March 28, 2023, Smith filed a notice to appeal. On June 8, 2023,

Smith’s counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders,

stating that he has been unable to identify any meritorious issues for appellant

review. In Anders, the United States Supreme Court outlined a procedure that

appointed counsel must follow to withdraw due to the lack of any meritorious

grounds for appeal. Anders at 744. If appointed counsel, after a conscientious

examination of the record, determines an appeal to be wholly frivolous, he or she

should advise the court of that fact and request permission to withdraw. Id.

Counsel’s request to withdraw must “be accompanied by a brief referring to

anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. A copy of the

brief must be provided to the client, who must then be allowed sufficient time to

file his or her own pro se appellate brief. Id.

      {¶11} If these requirements are met, the appellate court must fully examine

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

the appellate court, after its independent review, finds “any of the legal points
arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous),” i.e., that an arguably

meritorious issue exists for appeal, it must discharge current counsel and appoint

new counsel to prosecute the appeal.        Id.   If, however, the appellate court

determines that the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request to

withdraw and dismiss the appeal.        Id.; see also State v. Garrison, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 111728, 2023-Ohio-1039, ¶ 7-8; State v. Phillips, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 110526, 2022-Ohio-375, ¶ 7-8.

      {¶12} We recognize, as this court stated in Garrison:

      Some judges of this court have criticized the Anders approach and
      suggested this court should eliminate the Anders procedure. See, e.g.,
      State v. Ruffin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 109134 and 109135, 2020-
      Ohio-5085 (S. Gallagher, J., dissenting); State v. Sims, 2019-Ohio-
      4975, 149 N.E.3d 1143 (8th Dist.) (Boyle, J., dissenting). Other
      districts have declined to accept Anders briefs, noting that the
      procedure is a constitutional safeguard but not a constitutional
      requirement. See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2017-Ohio-5772, 83 N.E.3d
      942 (4th Dist.); State v. Wenner, 2018-Ohio-2590, 114 N.E.3d 800
      (6th Dist.); State v. Cruz-Ramos, 2018-Ohio-1583, 125 N.E.3d 193
      (7th Dist.). Nevertheless, “this court continues to follow the
      procedures announced in Anders.” State v. Phillips, 8th Dist.
      Cuyahoga No. 110526, 2022-Ohio-375, ¶ 9, citing State v. Taylor, 8th
      Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101368, 2015-Ohio-420; State v. Williams, 8th
      Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107847, 2019-Ohio-3766; In re J.L., 8th Dist.
      Cuyahoga No. 109626, 2020-Ohio-5254.

Garrison at ¶ 9; see also Phillips at ¶ 9

      {¶13} Therefore, we must consider whether counsel’s request to withdraw

should be granted because any appeal would be frivolous. Although Smith’s
appointed counsel asserts that no meritorious arguments can be made on Smith’s

behalf, he presents as potential errors:

       I.    At the change of plea hearing in Case Nos. 676597 and 676598,
             on February 9, 2023, the court failed to comply with Crim.R.
             11(C)(2)(a) by not providing appellant with equivocal
             information concerning the requirement of a mandatory license
             suspension and mandatory consecutive sentencing; and

       II.   The three-year, six-month aggregate prison term imposed by
             the trial court is excessive, unsupported by the record, and
             contrary to law.

III.   Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)

       {¶14} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides that when accepting a guilty or no-contest

plea in a felony case, the trial court must personally address the defendant and

determine “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.” Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)

       {¶15} If Smith was convicted of failure to comply, the offense would include

mandatory consecutive sentences and a mandatory Class 2 driver’s license

suspension. However, Smith was convicted of attempted failure to comply, which

consecutive sentencing is not a penalty associated with that offense. See State v.

Garner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97948 and 97949, 2012-Ohio-3262.

Additionally, there is not a mandatory driver’s license suspension for this offense,

as well. See State v. Brown, 2022-Ohio-3736, 199 N.E.3d 219 ¶ 17, 18 (8th Dist.).
      {¶16} Therefore, the trial court did not fail to comply with Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(a).
IV.   Excessive Sentencing

      {¶17} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce,

or otherwise modify a sentence or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing

if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing

court’s findings as required under the law, or the sentence is otherwise contrary to

law. A sentence is contrary to law if it falls outside the statutory range for the

offense or if the sentencing court fails to consider the purposes and principles of

sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Pawlak, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103444, 2016-Ohio-5926, ¶ 58.

      {¶18} In this instant case, the trial court considered the purposes and

principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Additionally, the

sentences imposed by the trial court were within the statutory ranges. The trial

court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from

future crimes or to punish Smith and that consecutive sentences were not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the

offender poses to the public. The trial court also found that Smith committed one

or more of the multiple offenses while he was waiting for sentencing in other cases

and a capias was issued during that time, in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),

which provides:

      (4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for
      convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to
      serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the
      consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future
      crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not
      disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to
      the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds
      any of the following:

             (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple
             offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing,
             was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16,
             2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-
             release control for a prior offense.

             (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part
             of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two
             or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or
             unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses
             committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately
             reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.

             (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates
             that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public
             from future crime by the offender.

      {¶19} Therefore, Smith’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the trial

court did not err.

      {¶20} Appeal dismissed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCURS;
SEAN A. GALLAGHER, J. DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., DISSENTING:

      I respectfully dissent. I believe this district should eliminate the Anders

procedure for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in State v. Ruffin, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 109134, 109135, 2020-Ohio-5085 ¶ 20-24 (S. Gallagher, P.J.,

dissenting), and State v. Sims, 2019-Ohio-4975, 149 N.E.3d 1143, ¶ 37-73 (8th Dist.)

(Boyle, J., dissenting).