State v. Brewer, 2017 Ohio 8247

Brewer pleaded guilty in 2016 to three counts of trafficking in heroin and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 60 months; the trial court also imposed “optional” post-release control and ordered payment of court costs and restitution to the police department for lab costs and a controlled buy.
On direct appeal (Brewer I), this court vacated the sentence and remanded because the record did not contain the prior-criminal-history evidence the trial court appeared to rely on when imposing consecutive sentences; the court also noted potential problems with the restitution order to a law-enforcement agency and with the manner of imposing post-release control.
On remand the trial court supplemented the record with Court’s Exhibit 1 (Brewer’s criminal record), reiterated findings supporting consecutive sentences (protect public/punish; not disproportionate; history of criminal conduct), and stated restitution to the police department was part of Brewer’s plea agreement and therefore enforceable.
The court corrected the prior omission by imposing post-release control in the resentencing hearing and in the judgment entry.
Brewer’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous issues exist; Brewer did not file a pro se brief, and this court conducted an independent review of the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record	State: consecutive sentences necessary to protect public/punish; Defendant’s history supports consecutive terms	Brewer: (in prior appeal) trial court relied on facts not in record to justify consecutive terms	Affirmed: supplemented record (Court’s Exhibit 1) shows extensive criminal history and bond violation; consecutive sentences supported
Whether trial court could order restitution to a police department	State: restitution enforced per plea agreement	Brewer: restitution to law-enforcement agency cannot be court-ordered at sentencing	Court: restitution to police could not be ordered by court on its own, but Brewer validly agreed to pay as part of plea agreement and court may enforce that contract
Whether post-release control was properly imposed	State: post-release control imposed at resentencing and in entry	Brewer: initial sentencing failed to properly impose post-release control	Resolved: error corrected on remand; post-release control properly imposed at resentencing
Whether there are non-frivolous appellate issues (Anders review)	State: record supports sentence; no meritorious issues	Brewer: appellate counsel raised Anders brief claiming no non-frivolous issues	Court: after independent review, agrees Anders brief conclusion; no non-frivolous issues; appeal frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (review standard following Anders filings)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (standards for reviewing consecutive-sentence findings)
State v. Brewer, 80 N.E.3d 1257 (2d Dist. 2017) (Brewer I: vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing)