State v. Baker, 2013 Ohio 862

Appellant Baker was indicted on 25 counts, including multiple rapes and related offenses, involving five juvenile victims.
On Dec. 28, 2011, Baker pled guilty to all charges under a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement that removed life specifications and secured a jointly recommended 10-year sentence.
The trial court conducted a detailed plea colloquy, informing Baker of rights waived and consequences of the plea.
In a Jan. 23, 2012 judgment, the court imposed the jointly recommended 10-year sentence as agreed by Baker and the state.
Baker filed an appeal; counsel moved to withdraw under Anders and our Toney framework, arguing the appeal lacks arguable merit.
The appellate court sustained counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed Baker’s conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Alford plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered?	State asserts plea colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11(C)(2) and addressed rights and consequences.	Baker contends potential deficiencies in the plea colloquy or record could undermine voluntariness.	Plea valid; colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11(C)(2); no reversible error.
Did the trial court properly conduct the change-of-plea colloquy and advise on rights waived?	State relies on comprehensive advisement of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights.	Baker asserts possible omissions or misunderstandings in rights discussion.	Colloquy satisfied constitutional and nonconstitutional rights; substantial compliance achieved.
May counsel withdraw under Anders/Toney when appeal is frivolous?	State and court-appointed counsel determined no arguable merit exists.	Baker has right to proceed pro se if issues exist; counsel may withdraw if frivolous.	Withdrawal granted; the appeal deemed wholly frivolous and affirmed.
Is the jointly recommended sentence reviewable on direct appeal?	Sentence supported by jointly recommended agreement and law; not subject to direct appeal.	N/A or not supported—no contest challenges asserted.	Jointly recommended sentence is not subject to direct appeal.

State v. Odorizzi, 126 Ohio App.3d 512 (1998) (establishes standard for reviewing frivolous-appeal claims under Anders)
State v. Toney, supra (1970) (procedure for withdrawal of court-appointed counsel when appeal is frivolous)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) strict compliance for guilty pleas; prejudice rule)
State v. Ballard, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional plea requirements)
State v. Carter, 706 N.E.2d 409 (1997) (Alford pleas and avoidance of jury trial consequences)
State v. Nguyen, 2007-Ohio-2034 (2007) (Alford plea considerations and record review)
State v. Bailey, 2004-Ohio-6427 (2004) (plea validity and related considerations in Alford-type pleas)
State v. Reed, 2010-Ohio-1096 (2010) (sentencing and appellate review of jointly recommended sentences)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 evaluation and voluntariness of pleas)
State v. Griggs, 814 N.E.2d 51 (2004) (substantial compliance standard for plea proceedings)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (subjective understanding standard for plea sufficiency)