Court Opinion

ID: 9402006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 19:09:24.624763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:56.862271
License: Public Domain

[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                                             C.A. No.   30413

        Appellee

        v.                                                APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                          ENTERED IN THE
JASON E. PERRIN                                           COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                          COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellant                                         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 fentanyl-

related 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 ½ 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, non-

frivolous 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.