State v. Barrett
2011 Ohio 2303
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Markus H. Barrett was indicted for two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, receiving stolen property, possession of criminal tools, and failure to comply with police, then pled guilty to one aggravated robbery count.
- The other charges and firearm specifications were dismissed; sentencing included a three-year term for aggravated robbery and a two-year term from another case (09-CR-3961) to run consecutively.
- Guidance at sentencing included a Rule 11 colloquy where Barrett knowingly waived rights and acknowledged a potential sentence of five years total due to post-release control.
- The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation; sentencing occurred on July 12, 2010 with an agreed two-year sentence in 09-CR-3961 to be served consecutively to three years in 09-CR-3642.
- The court advised Barrett about post-release control: five years for aggravated robbery and three years for felonious assault, to be served concurrently for a total of five years.
- The appellate court, conducting an Anders review, held no meritorious issues existed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment as wholly frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of manifest-weight claim by guilty plea | Barrett’s plea of guilty waives manifest-weight challenges. | Barrett argues manifest-weight issue survives plea. | Waived; affirmed without meritorious weight challenge. |
| Validity of sentencing and post-release-control terms | Sentence and post-release-control terms were properly imposed and explained. | No substantive argument presented; potential errors foreclosed by plea. | Sentence affirmed; post-release-control terms appropriately imposed. |
| Ineffective assistance/Anders brief merits | Counsel’s Anders brief raised potential issues for appeal. | Counsel contends there are nonfrivolous issues to raise. | No viable issues; Anders claim frivolous; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (mandatory independent review when counsel files an Anders brief)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004-Ohio-4415) (plea waives manifest-weight/sufficiency challenges)
- Huber Heights v. Duty, 27 Ohio App.3d 244 (Ohio App. 1985) (manifest-weight/sufficiency attacks waived by guilty plea; appellate review)