2018 Ohio 2378
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Rafevel Green pleaded guilty to: having a weapon while under a disability, trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in heroin, aggravated possession of drugs, and child endangering.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders-style no-error brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and moved to withdraw.
- Counsel informed Green of his right to file a pro se response; Green did not respond.
- Counsel asked the court to independently review the record to determine frivolousness under Anders v. California.
- The appellate court reviewed the record and found an arguable issue regarding the validity of Green’s guilty pleas because the trial court failed to notify Green of his constitutional right to confront witnesses (per State v. Veney).
- Because an arguable issue exists, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, appointed new counsel, and ordered further briefing on the plea-validity issue and any other issues new counsel uncovers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is wholly frivolous such that Anders counsel may be permitted to withdraw without new counsel being appointed | The State inferred the plea and record present no reversible error (supporting counsel’s conclusion of frivolousness) | Green (implicitly) challenges plea validity based on lack of confrontation-right notice | The court found the appeal is not wholly frivolous and declined to decide on the merits without appointed counsel and the State’s response |
| Whether Green’s guilty pleas were valid absent trial-court advisement of the confrontation right | The State did not contest the court’s finding that the record could be viewed as adequate for plea entry | Green’s pleas may be invalid because the trial court failed to notify him of his right to confront accusers, raising an arguable claim under Veney | The court held this is an arguable issue requiring appointed counsel to brief the matter before disposition |
| Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders procedures | Counsel asserted a thorough review showed no non-frivolous issues, justifying withdrawal | Green did not oppose or respond to counsel’s Anders submission | The court granted counsel’s withdrawal but required new counsel due to the identified arguable issue |
| Procedural next steps (briefing and appointment) | The State should be allowed to respond after new counsel files an assignment of error | Green needs counsel to advocate the plea-validity argument | The court appointed new counsel, ordered an appellant brief and a responsive brief from the State before resubmission |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for withdrawal of appointed counsel when appeal appears frivolous)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must notify defendants of the right to confront accusers when taking a guilty plea)
- In re Booker, 133 Ohio App.3d 387 (Ohio App. 1999) (appellate court may decide an Anders appeal only after independent review; if arguable issues exist, counsel must be appointed)