State v. Cody
2016 Ohio 7785
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Matthew T. Cody pleaded guilty in four consolidated Cuyahoga County cases to multiple felonies including drug trafficking, tampering with records, burglary, weapons offenses, escape, identity fraud, and drug possession.
- The trial court conducted a joint plea hearing, found the pleas knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11, and complied with statutory forfeiture provisions.
- At a joint sentencing hearing the court imposed terms that resulted in a total aggregate four-year prison sentence (individual terms ordered concurrent across cases, with one firearm specification consecutive to a drug-trafficking term).
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding any appeal would be frivolous.
- The court performed an independent review of the record, found no Crim.R. 11, sentencing, postrelease-control, or no-contact-order errors, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty pleas under Crim.R. 11 | State: trial court complied with Crim.R. 11; pleas were knowing, intelligent, voluntary | Cody: (potential) pleas not knowing/voluntary | Court: Crim.R. 11 compliance shown; pleas valid; issue frivolous |
| Waiver of re-reading of rights during joint plea colloquy | State: initial full advisement covered all cases; defendant waived re-reading | Cody: (potential) required separate colloquies for each case | Court: waiver was valid; no separate colloquy required here; no error |
| Sentencing compliance with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and postrelease control | State: court considered required factors and advised postrelease control | Cody: (potential) sentencing errors or inadequate consideration | Court: sentencing within statutory guidelines; factors considered; postrelease control properly advised; no error |
| No-contact order after Anderson decision | State: prosecutor noted victim-contact agreement but court did not impose no-contact order | Cody: (potential) improper no-contact condition | Court: no no-contact order was issued or journalized; Anderson not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw because appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 (8th Dist. 1978) (appellate procedure following Anders in Ohio)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (Crim.R. 11 requires that guilty pleas be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2015) (trial court may not impose a no-contact order while sentencing a defendant to a prison term)