State v. Christian, 2014 Ohio 4882

Appellant James M. Christian pled guilty to a Bill of Information charging two counts of Complicity to Involuntary Manslaughter, a charge of Aggravated Burglary, and Tampering with Evidence, with firearm specifications alleged.
Plea and an agreed sentence of 18 years were established by joint State–defendant plea agreement; plea accepted March 3, 2010; Finding on Guilty Plea filed.
Sentencing hearing on April 25, 2013 resulted in 18-year total: three-year gun spec sentence merged, then 10 years for Counts One and Two, five years for Count Three, and 36 months for Count Four concurrent to others.
May 1, 2013 Entry on Sentence memorialized the sentence and required sentencing-factor consideration; counsel filed Anders brief claiming frivolity of appeal.
Appellate court granted Anders relief, finding no nonfrivolous issues, and affirmed; counsel withdrawn; dissent argued potential merit issues including allied-offense merger and judicial-release misstatement.
Dissent advocates appointment of new appellate counsel to pursue potential arguable issues, asserting due-process concerns about the Anders procedure and certain sentencing aspects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is wholly frivolous given a jointly agreed sentence.	Christian argues no nonfrivolous issues exist; Anders briefing supports frivolity.	Christian contends there may be arguable issues warranting review.	Frivolous overall; no nonfrivolous issues found.
Whether the sentence, though jointly agreed, was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.	State notes plea agreement forecloses independent justification review.	Christian asserts possible legal deficiencies in sentencing.	Not raised as nonfrivolous issues; joint agreement precludes independent review.
Whether allied-offense merger should have occurred for the convictions.	Not raised below; merger not warranted.	Potential misapplication of allied-offense doctrine.	Court found no error given separate victims and complete conduct on each offense.
Whether the court improperly advised about judicial release affected the plea.	Misstatement alleged but not dispositive to plea.	Confusion over judicial release could influence plea; harmless or prejudicial.	Not prejudicial to plea; no impact on entry of plea.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (required briefing and opportunity to pursue nonfrivolous issues before withdrawal)
State v. Mills, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-T-0055, 2011-Ohio-5110 (Ohio 2011) (joint sentence agreed by state and defendant generally not reviewed on appeal)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio 2008) (two-step Kalish framework for review of felony sentencing)
State v. Cornelison, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-064, 2014-Ohio-2884 (Ohio 2014) (applies Kalish framework; review of consecutive sentences for legality)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 2005-Ohio-3095 (Ohio 2005) (plea nuances and sentencing justification can be based on stipulations)
State v. Mitchell, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0139, 2006-Ohio-618 (Ohio 2006) (court not required to advise on judicial release; potential impact of misstatement)
State v. Underwood, State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1 (Ohio 2010) (allied-offense merger principles and double jeopardy concerns)