Court Opinion

ID: 9385948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 20:07:10.761098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:00.728389
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Adair, 2023-Ohio-1191.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    MUSKINGUM 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-
                                                  Case No. CT2022-0016
TIFFANY ADAIR

        Defendant-Appellant                       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                       Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
                                               Pleas, Case No. CR2021-0434

JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        April 10, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant

RONALD WELCH                                   JAMES S. SWEENEY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                           JAMES S. SWEENEY, LLC
27 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 189            285 South Liberty Street
Zanesville, Ohio 43702                         Powell, Ohio 43055
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0016                                                   2

Wise, J.

    {¶1}     Appellant Tiffany Adair appeals the December 15, 2021 judgment entry of

the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas sentencing Appellant to forty-eight

months in prison and a ten-year license suspension. Appellee is State of Ohio.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

    {¶2}     Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We informed Appellant

that his attorney had filed an Anders brief on his behalf and granted him until January

29, 2023, to file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

    {¶3}     In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held 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. Anders 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 the 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.

    {¶4}     The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0016                                                    3

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

   {¶5}      On August 19, 2021, Appellant was indicted on Aggravated Vehicular

Assault, in violation of R.C. §2903.08(A)(1)(a); Vehicular Assault, in violation of R.C.

§2903.08(A)(2)(B); and two counts of OVI, in violation of R.C. §4511.19(A)(1)(A) and

R.C. §4511.19(A)(2)(A).

   {¶6}      These charges arose from an incident on January 18, 2021. On that date

Appellant drove her vehicle into the vehicle in front of her which contained four people.

This accident resulted in several juveniles being transported to the hospital, one suffering

serious physical harm. Appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the

accident.

   {¶7}      On November 3, 2021, Appellant pled no-contest to the charge of

Aggravated Vehicular Assault, a felony of the third degree.

   {¶8}      On December 13, 2021, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the

hearing the trial court sentenced Appellant to forty-eight months in prison and a ten-year

license suspension.

                          POTENTIAL ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

   {¶9}      Counsel’s brief suggests one potential assignment of error as follows:

   {¶10}     “I. POTENTIAL ISSUES OF WHETHER APPELLANT’S SENTENCE WAS

SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND CONTRARY TO LAW.”

                                               I.

   {¶11}     While counsel in the case sub judice did file a pleading purporting to be a

brief, the brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A)(7), nor does it comply with the

requirements of Anders. Counsel in this case failed to include any argument, any citation
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0016                                                      4

to the record and any authorities in support of Appellant’s proposed assignments of error.

See State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93, 94, 385 N.E.2d 323, 324 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978);

State v. Pullen, 2d Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 6,

2002). “If an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this

court’s duty to root it out.” Thomas v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 08CA17, 2009-

Ohio-3299, 2009 WL 1913281, at ¶14, quoting State v. Carman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

90512, 2008-Ohio-4368, 2008 WL 3975573, at ¶31. “It is not the function of this court to

construct a foundation for [an appellant’s] claims; failure to comply with the rules

governing practice in the appellate courts is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal.” Catanzarite

v. Boswell, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24184, 2009-Ohio-1211, at ¶16, quoting Kremer v. Cox,

114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60, 682 N.E.2d 1006 (9th Dist. 1996).

   {¶12}     In her sole potential Assignment of Error, Appellant’s nonconforming brief

appears to suggest the trial court’s sentence was not supported by the record and

contrary to law. We disagree.

   {¶13}     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, ¶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
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0016                                                   5

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

   court’s standard of 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 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 of the Revised Code,

   whichever, if any, is relevant;

             (b)    That the sentence is contrary to law.

   {¶14}     “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

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

three of the syllabus.

   {¶15}     “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, quoting State v. Dinka, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-03-

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

   {¶16}     Here, Appellant pled no contest to Aggravated Vehicular Assault in violation

of R.C. §2913.08(A)(1)(a), a felony of the third degree.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0016                                                     6

   {¶17}     During sentencing, neither party disputed that Appellant’s forty-eight-month

sentence is within the statutory range for a felony in the third degree. R.C.

§2929.14(A)(3)(a).

   {¶18}     Appellant appears to argue the trial court may have failed to consider the

principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. §2929.11 and the seriousness

and recidivism factors under R.C. §2929.12. However, a review of the record shows the

clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. §2929.11

and R.C. §2929.12. The trial court noted at the sentencing hearing that Appellant got

behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk and caused a collision with the victims’ car. Appellant

never applied the brakes and accelerated into the vehicle. Appellant caused broken ribs,

a broken collar bone, burn marks on the face, frontal lobe brain bleed, damage to his

pancreas, liver kidney and gall bladder causing one teenage boy to spend twenty-eight

days in the hospital. His older brother had four fractured ribs and a jammed up back,

missing his junior year high school football season. The boys’ mother had a torn ACL

and meniscus and had to have surgery. The trial court also noted Appellant lied to

officers and blamed the victims stating they cut her off, and Appellant arrived at her first

plea hearing drunk.

   {¶19}     Upon review, we find the sentence imposed is not clearly and convincingly

contrary to law. The sentence is within the statutory range for a felony of the third degree,

and the trial court considered the R.C. §2929.11 and R.C. §2929.12 factors.

   {¶20}     We find no merit in the sole proposed Assignment of Error, and it is hereby

overruled. Furthermore, after independently reviewing the record, we agree with

appellate counsel’s conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0016                                               7

base an appeal. We therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant

counsel’s request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

    {¶21}      For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Muskingum County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Hoffman, P. J., and

King, J, concur.

JWW/br 0330