State v. Jones, 2017 Ohio 7535

Tadara D. Jones pled guilty to two counts of fourth-degree felony cocaine trafficking on July 12, 2016.
One week before sentencing Jones moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the motion was presented at the sentencing hearing on Sept. 26, 2016.
The trial court denied the plea-withdrawal motion as a change of heart and immediately sentenced Jones to 36 months imprisonment.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, stating no non-frivolous issues existed; the state waived filing a brief.
The Sixth District identified a potential arguable issue—trial court’s failure to address Jones personally at sentencing under Crim.R. 32(A)(1).
Because an Anders brief cannot substitute for counsel on arguable issues, the court granted appellate counsel’s withdrawal and appointed new counsel to brief the identified issue within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to personally address the defendant at sentencing as required by Crim.R. 32(A)(1)	State did not press a substantive appellate argument (waived filing); implicitly contends no reversible error	Jones contends the court did not comply with Crim.R. 32(A)(1) by personally addressing him at sentencing	Court declined to decide the merit; found the issue potentially arguable and appointed new counsel to brief it
Whether appellate counsel’s Anders motion may stand without further briefing on the identified issue	State waived brief; no argument for keeping Anders withdrawal in place	Jones benefits from appointed counsel to press the arguable issue	Anders withdrawal not resolved on the merits—court granted counsel’s withdrawal but appointed new appellate counsel to advocate the arguable issue

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 783 (1967) (procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw for lack of nonfrivolous issues)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (Anders brief does not substitute for counsel to advocate arguable claims)