2017 Ohio 4320
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In March 2015 Phil and Tina Cook reported numerous items (guns, jewelry, a vehicle) stolen; their son Lance Brandyberry was investigated and charged after selling some items.
- Brandyberry was indicted on multiple counts; he pled guilty to one count of grand theft (vehicle), one count of receiving stolen property, and one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle; remaining charges were dismissed.
- The trial court ordered a presentence investigation, sentenced Brandyberry to an aggregate 45-month prison term, disapproved placement in an intensive program prison (IPP), and included court-appointed counsel fees and court costs in a post-confinement monthly payment schedule.
- On appeal counsel filed an Anders brief; the court found a potentially meritorious issue about inclusion of court-appointed fees/costs in the post-prison payment schedule and appointed new counsel.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(D) when disapproving IPP and whether it erred by placing court-appointed counsel fees and court costs into the post-confinement payment schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(D) in disapproving IPP | State: court made sufficient findings referencing PSI, criminal history, offense nature | Brandyberry: court made only a general statement and failed to provide specific reasons required by R.C. 2929.19(D) | Court: No error — record contains specific findings about offense, juvenile/adult history, and conduct supporting disapproval (R.C. 2929.19(D) satisfied) |
| Whether including court-appointed counsel fees and court costs in a post-confinement monthly payment schedule was permissible | State: conceded this inclusion was erroneous | Brandyberry: challenged inclusion as improper | Court: Error — vacated/excised the words "court costs" and "court appointed legal fees" from the payment schedule to the extent they compel post-prison monthly payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when appellate counsel believes an appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Johnson, 69 N.E.3d 176 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (R.C. 2929.19(D) satisfied where court reviewed offense, PSI, criminal history and articulated supporting facts)
- State v. Anderson, 35 N.E.3d 512 (Ohio 2015) (trial court lacks authority to impose certain post-confinement sanctions; limits on trial-court post-release orders)