State v. Fine
2017 Ohio 7013
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2012 Albert Fine confessed to murdering, dismembering, and disposing of his girlfriend C.H.; he admitted using her phone/ATM and moving her car to create the appearance she had left.
- C.H.’s remains were discovered; Fine fled to Kentucky, was arrested there after speaking to FBI agents, waived rights, and gave a confession; he was extradited to Ohio by Governor’s warrant.
- Fine was indicted on numerous counts including aggravated murder with death specifications; the day before trial he pled guilty to an amended indictment and agreed to life without parole in exchange for dismissal of death specifications.
- Fine waived appellate review and collateral attacks in his plea; the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him to life without parole.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was wholly frivolous and moved to withdraw; Fine filed a pro se letter alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and requesting new counsel.
- The Ninth District performed an independent review of the record, found no non-frivolous issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Anders brief / counsel withdrawal | Counsel contends no non-frivolous issues exist and asks to withdraw | Fine argues appellate counsel ineffective and requests new counsel | Court independently reviewed record, found no non-frivolous issues, granted withdrawal and affirmed |
| Right to raise ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel on direct appeal | Fine contends counsel was ineffective | State asserts such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal | Court held claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised on direct appeal |
| Validity of plea and waiver of appellate/collateral rights | Fine could argue plea/waiver invalid | State relies on valid plea colloquy and express waivers | Court found plea and waivers valid and dispositive—no appealable issues remain |
| Potential arguments regarding death-penalty and Sixth Amendment counsel rules | Counsel noted possible equal-protection challenge to death penalty and resurrection of Michigan v. Jackson rule | State noted controlling precedent rejects those arguments | Court treated these as frivolous under existing authority and declined relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) (pre-Montejo rule regarding assertion of right to counsel at arraignment)
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) (overruled Michigan v. Jackson)
- State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305 (1988) (rejecting equal-protection challenge to capital sentencing)