State v. Cody
2016 Ohio 7785
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Matthew T. Cody pleaded guilty in four Cuyahoga County cases to multiple felonies (drug trafficking/possession, tampering with records, possession of criminal tools, burglary, vandalism, weapons under disability, escape, improper handling of a firearm, identity fraud). Pleas were accepted after Crim.R. 11 colloquies.
- The court imposed individual prison terms across the cases (ranging from 12 months to 3 years, plus a one-year firearm specification) and ordered the terms to run concurrently, resulting in a total four-year prison term.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding any appeal would be frivolous and moved to withdraw; Cody filed no pro se brief.
- The Eighth District performed an independent review of the record as required by Anders and Duncan.
- The court found no reversible error in the plea colloquies, sentencing (including postrelease-control advisement and statutory factor consideration), or any unauthorized no-contact order, 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 (knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily) | Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11; pleas valid | Pleas could be challenged as not knowing, intelligent, voluntary (argued generically by Anders counsel) | Court independently reviewed record and held pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; appeal frivolous |
| Whether separate colloquy/re-reading of rights was required for each case during a joint plea hearing | State: initial full Crim.R. 11 colloquy covered rights; defendant waived re-reading for remaining cases | Cody could argue lack of separate colloquies for each case rendered some pleas invalid | Court held waiver was valid; no error in not re-reading rights for each case where defendant acknowledged applicability |
| Sentencing compliance with statutory requirements (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) and postrelease control advisement | Sentencing complied with statutory factors; postrelease control was properly advised | Potential challenge that sentencing factors or advisement were inadequate | Court found sentencing within statutory guidelines, trial court considered required factors, and postrelease-control advisement was proper |
| Whether a no-contact order was improperly imposed contrary to State v. Anderson | Prosecutor noted defendant agreed to no contact but trial court did not impose or journal a no-contact order | Defendant could claim a no-contact order was imposed at sentencing in violation of Anderson | Court found no no-contact order was entered at sentencing or journaled; no Anderson violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (appellate counsel may move to withdraw only after filing brief identifying anything that might arguably support appeal; court must independently review record)
- State v. Duncan, 385 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (procedural outline for Anders withdrawals in Ohio)
- State v. Engle, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (Crim.R. 11 requires defendant be informed of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights and consequences for plea to be knowing/voluntary)
- State v. Anderson, 35 N.E.3d 512 (Ohio 2015) (trial court may not impose a no-contact order as part of a prison sentence)