State v. Cody
2016 Ohio 7785
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Matthew T. Cody pleaded guilty in four consolidated Cuyahoga County dockets to multiple felony counts including drug trafficking, tampering with records, possession of criminal tools, burglary, weapons-under-disability, escape, identity fraud, and drug possession.
- Pleas were taken in a joint plea hearing after the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11; the court found the pleas knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and advised Cody of postrelease control and forfeiture consequences.
- At a joint sentencing hearing the court imposed individual prison terms across the dockets but ordered they run concurrently to one another for an aggregate four-year term (including a consecutive one-year firearm specification in one case).
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting any appeal would be frivolous and pointing to potential review points limited to the plea colloquy and sentencing.
- The state appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no prejudicial error in the plea or sentencing proceedings, and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, dismissing the appeal as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | Court complied with Crim.R. 11 and fully advised defendant of rights and consequences | Plea might be defective or not sufficiently re-pled for each separate case | Court held the record shows strict Crim.R. 11 compliance; pleas valid |
| Whether waiving re-reading of Crim.R. 11 rights for remaining cases was error | Waiver was knowing; initial colloquy applied to all cases | Waiver might render subsequent pleas invalid without fresh colloquy | Court held defendant affirmatively waived re-reading and subjectively understood rights; no error |
| Whether sentencing complied with statutory requirements (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | Sentences were within statutory ranges and court considered required factors | Sentencing might have procedural or substantive error | Court held sentencing complied with statutory guidelines and considerations |
| Whether a no-contact order was improperly imposed contrary to State v. Anderson | No no-contact order was imposed at sentencing or journalized | Prosecutor noted defendant agreed to no contact; possible improper order | Court found no no-contact order was entered or journalized; Anderson not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 (8th Dist. 1978) (Ohio procedure implementing Anders withdrawal review)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (standard for knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2015) (trial court may not impose a no-contact order as part of a prison sentence)