State v. Ellis, 2013 Ohio 2342

Defendant-Appellant Theodore Ellis was indicted in 2012 for illegal marijuana cultivation and possession of marijuana between 5,000 and 20,000 grams; he pled guilty to the lesser offense of Possession of Marijuana (1,000–5,000 grams).
The trial court sentenced Ellis to 24 months in prison and suspended his driver’s license for two years.
Ellis’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; Ellis did not file a pro se brief.
The court conducted an Anders review to determine if any non-frivolous issues existed for appeal.
At sentencing, the trial court considered multiple factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, including prior felonies, positive drug tests, noncompliance with recognizance, attitude, and substantial drug quantities, as well as failure to attend treatment.
Ellis admitted off the record that he sold drugs, and the court relied on that information in sentencing; Ellis challenged several aspects of the plea colloquy and the use of uncharged conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sentencing factors were properly considered.	Ellis argues improper sentencing factors were used.	State argues court properly weighed statutory factors.	No error; factors fell within 2929.11–12.1
Use of unchargedConduct in sentencing post-Foster	Ellis contends consideration of selling drugs outside the record violated Foster.	Court may consider uncharged conduct and dismissed charges.	Proper to consider broad information, including uncharged conduct.
Validity of plea colloquy when co-defendant was questioned together	Guilty plea may not be knowing or voluntary.	Crim.R.11 compliance; separate elicitation; no confusion.	Plea knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered; no defect.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (framework for reviewing Anders-type appeals and determining frivolousness; appointment of new counsel if nonfrivolous issues exist)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (court has discretion on sentence within statutory range; no need for findings for maximum terms)
State v. Banks, 2011-Ohio-2749 (Ohio 2011) (courts may consider dismissed or reduced charges for sentencing; not limited to conviction)
State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 (Ohio App.3d 2010) (sentencing may rely on broad information, including uncharged conduct)
State v. Bodkins, 2011-Ohio-1274 (Ohio App.2d Dist. 2011) (courts may consider a broad range of information at sentencing)
State v. Parks, 2012-Ohio-1981 (Ohio App.2d Dist. 2012) (confirms consideration of related information in sentencing)
State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1991) (recognizes sentencing deliberations may include various factors)
State v. Marbury, 2003-Ohio-3242 (Ohio 2003) (discusses Anders framework in Montgomery County decisions)