State v. Davis, 2017 Ohio 7483

Tony L. Davis, Jr. pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide (first-degree felony with an enhancement for driving with a suspended license) and to driving while under the influence (first-degree misdemeanor with a prior-conviction specification).
Trial court sentenced Davis to nine years on the felony and 20 days on the misdemeanor, to run concurrently, plus a mandatory five-year postrelease-control term and driver’s-license penalties.
New appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, filing a no-merit brief that identified but rejected potential appellate issues.
Counsel considered challenges to the guilty plea (failure to advise rights, lack of comprehension, ineffective assistance) and to the sentence (contrary to law or unsupported by the record) and concluded each would be frivolous.
Davis was given opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not. The court reviewed the record and agreed with counsel that no nonfrivolous issues exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of guilty plea	State: plea was knowing, voluntary, and properly canvassed by the trial court	Davis could argue the court failed to advise rights, he didn’t comprehend proceedings, or counsel was ineffective	Court: record shows the trial court properly advised Davis; he affirmed comprehension and satisfaction with counsel; plea valid, no nonfrivolous claim
Legality/reviewability of sentence	State: nine-year sentence is within statutory range and court considered required factors; no basis for reversal	Davis could argue sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by record	Court: sentence within statutory range and not contrary to law; broader review would also be frivolous; appeal dismissed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (discussion of appellate review when record may not support sentencing findings)