Court Opinion

ID: 9946607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 21:09:23.758179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:22.281234
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

                                            COURT OF APPEALS
                                        MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                        FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    STATE OF OHIO                                   :    JUDGES:
                                                    :
                                                    :    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
           Plaintiff-Appellee                       :    Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
                                                    :    Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
    -vs-                                            :
                                                    :    Case No. CT2023-0039
                                                    :
    WILLIAM M. STOTTS                               :
                                                    :
                                                    :
           Defendant-Appellant                      :    OPINION

   CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Muskingum County
                                                        Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                        CR2022-0212

   JUDGMENT:                                            AFFIRMED

   DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                              February 29, 2024

   APPEARANCES:

    For Plaintiff-Appellee:                              For Defendant-Appellant:

    RONALD L. WELCH                                      CHRIS BRIGDON
    MUSKINGUM COUNTY PROSECUTOR                          8138 Somerset Road
    27 North Fifth St.                                   Thornville, OH 43076
    P.O. Box 189
    Zanesville, OH 43702
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

 Delaney, P.J.

          {¶1} Defendant-Appellant William M. Stotts appeals from the May 15, 2023

 Sentencing Judgment Entry issued by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas

 pursuant to our remand in State v. Stotts, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0064, 2023-

 Ohio-1411. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio and did not appear in the instant appeal.

          {¶2} Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.E.2d 493 (1967), asserting he found no potential assignments

 of error having arguable merit. We have performed our duty under Anders to review the

 record independently, and we also find no potential assignments of error having arguable

 merit. See, State v. Adair, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0016, 2023-Ohio-1191, ¶ 20.

                                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

          {¶3}     The facts and procedural history come in part from our previous decision in

 State v. Stotts, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0064, 2023-Ohio-1411 (“Stotts I”).

          {¶4} Stotts was released from prison on post release control on December 24,

 2021. On April 30, 2022, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Stotts was stopped by the

 Muskingum County Sheriff's office for a traffic violation. The officer noticed that Stotts was

 wearing a handgun holster and asked whether he had a firearm in the vehicle. Stotts

 admitted that he had a loaded gun, and when asked if there was anything illegal in the

 vehicle, he admitted possessing methamphetamine. After searching the vehicle, the

 deputy found a nine-millimeter handgun in a plastic bag with a substance that was later

 determined to be methamphetamine. Stotts also had $564.00 on his person. He admitted

 possession of the methamphetamine and the handgun and confessed that he sold drugs

 to his friends and that he used methamphetamine daily.
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

          {¶5} Stotts was charged with seven offenses arising from his arrest. After plea

 negotiations, the State agreed to dismiss four of the counts in exchange for a plea of

 guilty to (1) Trafficking in Drugs, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2);

 (2) Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, in fourth-degree felony in violation

 of R.C. 2923.16(B); and (3) Having a Weapon under a Disability, a third-degree felony in

 violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). The State and Stotts also agreed to a joint

 recommendation of 36 months in prison.

          {¶6} Stotts appeared before the court on August 22, 2022 for sentencing. After

 reviewing the facts, the trial court rejected the joint recommendation and imposed an

 aggregate sentence of 72 months, a fine of $5000, and ordered forfeiture of the firearm

 and the vehicle that Stotts was driving at the time of the offense. The sentencing entry

 was filed on August 24, 2022.

          {¶7}     Stotts appealed the trial court’s imposition of sentence to this Court in Stotts

 I. He raised two Assignments of Error:

          I. THE PROPORTIONALITY OF THE SENTENCE WAS INCONSISTENT

          WITH THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH O.R.C. § 2929.11 AND FACTORS

          TO BE CONSIDRED(sic) IN O.R.C. § 2929.12.”

          II. SHOULD THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD (sic) VACATE THE

          TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

          ON COUNTS 2-3 AND 5 BECAUSE THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

          ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE SENTENCING STATUTES.

 Id. at ¶ 6-7.
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

          {¶8} We denied Stotts’ first Assignment of Error. In his second Assignment of

 Error, however, we agreed with Stotts that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive

 sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Our review of the sentencing transcript and

 the sentencing entry showed that neither contained language that could be reasonably

 be interpreted as language that would satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

 Stotts I, at ¶ 24.

          {¶9} Because trial court did not make the necessary findings during the

 sentencing hearing and incorporate them into its sentencing entry, we found the

 imposition of consecutive sentences was in error. The trial court's sentencing order as to

 consecutive sentences was reversed, and the matter remanded for resentencing. Id. at ¶

 25-27.

          {¶10} The matter came on for resentencing pursuant to remand on May 15, 2023.

 The trial court stated at the sentencing hearing:

          The Court finds consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public

          and     punish       this    offender   and   consecutive   sentences   are   not

          disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and the danger posed to

          the public. Additionally, your history of criminal conduct demonstrates that

          consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future

          crimes.

 (T. 11). The trial court imposed the same sentence as it did on August 24, 2022. On Count

 2, Trafficking in Drugs, Stotts was ordered to serve a 36-month prison term to be served

 concurrently with a 12-month prison term on Count 3, Improper Handling of a Firearm in

 a Motor Vehicle. On Count 5, Having a Weapon While Under Disability, the trial court
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

 imposed a 36-month prison term to be served consecutively with Counts 2 and 3, for an

 aggregate prison term of 72 months. The sentencing entry filed on May 15, 2023 included

 language pertaining to R.C. 2919.14(C)(4) and the imposition of consecutive sentences.

          {¶11} It is from this May 15, 2023 sentencing entry that Stotts files his Anders

 appeal.

                                        ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

          {¶12} In his Anders brief, Stotts’ appellate counsel argues only one potential

 Assignment of Error may exist. He contends that because the trial court originally imposed

 consecutive sentences but failed to state the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C) findings, imposing

 consecutive sentences at resentencing could be construed as a harsher sentence.

                                                 ANALYSIS

                                            Consecutive Sentences

          {¶13} In Stotts I, this Court found that the trial court did not comply with R.C.

 2929.14(C)(4) where in order to impose a consecutive sentence, the trial court is required

 to make findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and

 incorporate its findings into the sentencing entry. Stotts I, ¶ 23 citing State v. Bonnell, 140

 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. The matter was remanded to

 the trial court for resentencing. The trial court conducted the resentencing hearing and

 imposed consecutive sentences.

          {¶14} Before a trial court imposes consecutive sentences, it must make specific

 findings which are delineated in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Specifically, the trial court must find

 that “the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to

 punish the offender.” Id. It must also find that “consecutive sentences are not
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

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

 offender poses to the public.” Id. Finally, the court must find at least one 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.

          {¶15} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reverse or modify

 a defendant's consecutive sentences using the principles and purposes of felony

 sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11(A) and (B) and the seriousness and recidivism

 factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141

 N.E.3d 169, ¶13-18. (“Gwynne II”); State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729,

 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶39; State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397, 2021-Ohio-3531, 186 N.E.3d

 784, ¶10.

          {¶16} An appellate court can reverse or modify the trial court's order of

 consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

 the findings. The Ohio Supreme Court has recently spoken on the standard by which an

 appellate court should review a trial court's consecutive sentences findings. State v.

 Grant, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2023-0023, 2023-Ohio-4614, 2023 WL 8716601, ¶

 23. In State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, -- N.E.3d --, ¶ 5, the Ohio Supreme Court

 reconsidered its prior decision in State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, -- N.E.3d --, and held

 that “[t]he plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a

 trial court's consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court's findings must be upheld

 unless those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.” Grant at

 ¶ 23.

          {¶17} The trial court made the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record

 and incorporated that language in its May 15, 2023 resentencing entry. At the

 resentencing hearing, the trial court also noted that Stotts had been out of prison for four

 months prior to his arrest and conviction. (T. 7, 9-11). Within four months of his release

 from prison, Stotts was using and selling methamphetamine. (T. 8, 5-9). Stotts admitted

 that he knew he was not allowed to possess a handgun but possessed a handgun

 because he was selling drugs. (T. 8-9, 11-19). The trial court reviewed Stotts’ prior

 criminal history, which included theft in 2009, drug abuse in 2001, failure to license a dog

 at large, passing bad checks in 1999 and 1998, underage consumption in 1997, and

 juvenile burglary and theft charges. (T. 10, 3-15).

          {¶18} Upon review, we find that the trial court's sentencing on the charges

 complies with applicable rules and sentencing statutes. The sentence was within the

 statutory sentencing range. We also find that the record in the case at bar supports the

 trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

                             No arguably meritorious claims for appeal

          {¶19} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if, after a

 conscientious examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is

 wholly frivolous, then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.

 Id. at 744. Counsel must accompany his request with a brief identifying anything in the

 record that could arguably support his client's appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish

 his client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw and (2) allow his client sufficient

 time to raise any matters that 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 that 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.

          {¶20} Counsel in this matter followed the procedure in Anders and we reviewed

 the merits of Stotts’ potential Assignment of Error. Upon our review of the record, we

 found no error which would warrant a reversal of Stotts’ convictions or sentence. See,

 State v. Mamone, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 22 CAC 06 0042, 2023-Ohio-1167, ¶ 37; State

 v. Emery, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 22-COA-026, 2023-Ohio-709, ¶ 21.

          {¶21} The record discloses no errors prejudicial to Stotts’ rights in the proceedings

 in the trial court. We therefore concur with appellate counsel that appellant's appeal is

 without merit and wholly frivolous. An appeal is wholly frivolous if the record is devoid of

 any legal points arguable on the merits. State v. Middaugh, 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 02

 CA 17, 2003-Ohio-91, ¶ 13.
[Cite as State v. Stotts, 2024-Ohio-747.]

          {¶22} In this case, the requirements in Anders have been satisfied. Upon our

 independent review of the record, we agree with counsel's conclusion that 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 Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. See, State v. Hill, 5th Dist.

 Licking No. 15-CA-13, 2016-Ohio-1214, ¶ 20, appeal not allowed, 147 Ohio St.3d 1412,

 2016-Ohio-7455, 62 N.E.3d 185.

                                            CONCLUSION

          {¶23} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is

 affirmed.

 By: Delaney, P.J.,

 Gwin, J. and

 Hoffman, J., concur.