Court Opinion

ID: 9928460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 19:08:41.60057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:29.624032
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Ball, 2024-Ohio-301.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                       LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                 :       JUDGES:
                                              :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                    :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                              :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                          :
                                              :
MARQUIS D. BALL                               :       Case No. 2023 CA 00029
                                              :
        Defendant-Appellant                   :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                      Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR 00584

JUDGMENT:                                             Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                     January 29, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                                For Defendant-Appellant

KENNETH W. OSWALT                                     BRIAN A. SMITH
20 South Second Street                                123 South Miller Road
4th Floor                                             Suite 250
Newark, OH 43055                                      Fairlawn, OH 44333

                                                      Marquis D. Ball
                                                      #A809225
                                                      Mansfield Correctional Institution
                                                      1150 North Main Street
                                                      Mansfield, OH 44903
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00029                                                   2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Marquis D. Ball, appeals his February 2, 2023

sentence from the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio. Appellee is the state

of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On February 2, 2023, Ball pled guilty to one count of obstructing official

business in violation of R.C. 2921.31. By judgment entry filed same day, the trial court

sentenced Ball to one year in prison. The trial court also imposed the balance of Ball's

postrelease control time he was currently serving, 515 days, to be served consecutively

to the one-year sentence for a total sentence of two years and one hundred fifty days.

       {¶ 3} Ball filed an appeal and was appointed counsel. Thereafter, Ball's attorney

filed an Anders brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). In

Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if, after a conscientious examination

of the record, the defendant's counsel concludes that the case is wholly frivolous, then

counsel should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.

Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record that

could arguably support the defendant's appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish the

defendant with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and (2) allow the defendant

sufficient time to raise any matters that the defendant 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 frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00029                                                      3

withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or may

proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.

       {¶ 4} By judgment entry filed October 11, 2023, this court noted counsel had filed

an Anders brief and indicated to the court that he had served Ball with the brief.

Accordingly, this court notified Ball via certified U.S. Mail that he "may file a pro se brief

in support of the appeal within 60 days from the date of this entry." Ball did not do so.

       {¶ 5} The matter is now before this court for consideration of counsel's Anders

brief. Counsel urges this court to review the following:

                                               I

       {¶ 6} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE WAS CONTRARY TO

LAW, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) * * * FOR IMPOSING A SENTENCE FOR THE

VIOLATION OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL THAT WAS GREATER THAN BALL'S

REMAINING TIME ON POST-RELEASE CONTROL."

                                              II

       {¶ 7} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE WAS CONTRARY TO

LAW, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) * * * FOR FAILING TO SPECIFY THAT ITS

IMPOSITION OF A PRISON TERM TERMINATED BALL'S POST-RELEASE CONTROL

FOR THE EARLIER FELONY."

                                             I, II

       {¶ 8} In both of the proposed assignments of error, counsel suggests Ball's

sentence was contrary to law pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). We disagree.

       {¶ 9} This court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review set forth

in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231,
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00029                                                        4

¶ 22; State v. Howell, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00004, 2015-Ohio-4049, ¶ 31.

Subsection (G)(2) sets forth this court's standard of review as follows:

              (2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this

       section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the

       sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.

              The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a

       sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence

       and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.                  The

       appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court

       abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized

       by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

              (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings

       under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of

       section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,

       whichever, if any, is relevant;

              (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

       {¶ 10} "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is

more than a mere 'preponderance of the evidence,' but not to the extent of such certainty

as is required 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and which will produce in

the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00029                                                    5

established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph

three of the syllabus.

       {¶ 11} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial

court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed

in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant

within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 20-COA-

015, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90, rev'd on other grounds, State v. Morris, 172 Ohio St.3d 98,

222 N.E.3d 568, 2022-Ohio-4609, quoting State v. Dinka, 12th Dist. Warren Nos.

CA2019-03-022 and CA2019-03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36.

       {¶ 12} After a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy, Ball pled guilty to a fifth-degree felony.

February 2, 2023 T. at 5-15. Under R.C. 2929.14(A)(5), felonies of the fifth degree are

punishable by "a definite term of six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve months."

The trial court sentenced Ball to a one-year sentence. The sentence is within the statutory

range for a fifth-degree felony. During the sentencing hearing and in its judgment entry,

the trial court noted it considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Id. at 18.

The trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report.

       {¶ 13} As permitted under R.C. 2929.141(A)(1), the trial court also imposed the

balance of Ball's postrelease control time he was currently serving, 515 days, to be served

consecutively to the one-year sentence for a total sentence of two years and one hundred

fifty days. During the sentencing hearing, Ball agreed the balance was one year and five

months. Id. at 20. One year and five months equals 515 days. Id. at 21. The state

produced a letter showing 525 days, but the trial court disagreed with the math and went

with 515. Id. at 20.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00029                                                     6

       {¶ 14} During the plea colloquy, the trial court properly informed Ball it could

impose any remaining postrelease control time "in addition to or consecutively with any

sentence you receive in this case." Id. at 13. Ball indicated he understood. Id. During

the sentencing phase, the trial court informed Ball it was imposing "the balance" of his

postrelease control time consecutively, and then the trial court and Ball had a discussion

as to how many days he had "left" on his postrelease control to be imposed. Id. at 18-21.

Ball's postrelease control time was terminated by operation of law. R.C. 2929.141(A)(1)

("The imposition of a prison term for the post-release control violation shall terminate the

period of post-release control for the earlier felony"). In sentencing Ball to the balance of

his time, we do not find any statute or case law requiring the trial court to specifically

inform him that his postrelease control was terminated. See State v. Nix, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 106894, 2019-Ohio-1640. When imposing "the balance" of time, there is

nothing left of the earlier postrelease control time, it naturally terminates.

       {¶ 15} Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court properly informed Ball

of the consequences of his plea and Ball's sentence is not clearly and convincingly

contrary to law. The trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12, the sentence is within the permissible statutory range, and the trial court properly

imposed new post release control.

       {¶ 16} "Anders equated a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in

arguable merit. * * * An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law involved, no

responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal." State v. Pullen,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00029                                                 7

       {¶ 17} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel's

conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. We

find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw,

and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       {¶ 18} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, is

hereby affirmed.

By King, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Wise, J. concur.