State v. Goldsmith
2017 Ohio 484
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Charles Goldsmith was indicted on theft, possessing criminal tools, and receiving stolen property; he initially pled not guilty.
- Goldsmith withdrew his plea and entered a no-contest plea to one count of possessing criminal tools (a fifth-degree felony); the other counts were nolled.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 11 months imprisonment and ordered payment of confinement and appointed-counsel costs.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw, identifying three potential issues (sentence to prison, acceptance of plea, and imposition of costs).
- The state agreed no non-frivolous issues existed; Goldsmith did not file a pro se response.
- The Sixth District reviewed the record, addressed the three issues, found no reversible error, affirmed, and granted counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether sentencing to prison for a nonviolent fifth-degree felony violated the statutory presumption against prison | Court erred because R.C. 2929.13 presumes community control for qualifying 5th-degree nonviolent felonies | Trial court found organized criminal activity and lack of amenability to community control, overcoming the presumption | Affirmed: trial court’s findings supported; 11-month sentence within statutory range and not contrary to law |
| 2. Whether the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 in accepting the no-contest plea | Plea acceptance defective for failure to follow Crim.R. 11 procedures | Record shows the court personally addressed defendant, explained rights, penalties, and consequences; substantial compliance met | Affirmed: plea knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily made; Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance found |
| 3. Whether imposing costs of confinement and appointed counsel was plain error absent a finding of ability to pay | Imposition of costs invalid without clear and convincing evidence of ability to pay | Trial court made findings and record contained facts (age, education, work history) supporting ability to pay | Affirmed: court’s finding supported by clear and convincing evidence; not plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) substantial-compliance standard)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (framework for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 1996) (plain-error standard in criminal cases)
- State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (Ohio 2000) (failure to object in trial court waives all but plain error on appeal)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)