State v. Kendall, 2019 Ohio 2836

Defendant James Lee Kendall was indicted for burglary (2nd-degree) and domestic violence with prior-offense specifications; he pled guilty to third-degree felony domestic violence in exchange for dismissal of the burglary charge.
Arrest arose after officers responded to a disturbance at the victim Andrea Huffman’s home where Kendall allegedly forced entry, flipped furniture, struck Huffman, and threw objects; Huffman had visible bruising.
Kendall had multiple prior domestic-violence convictions (2003, 2005, 2010) and a prior second-degree burglary conviction resulting in prior prison time.
Trial court denied Kendall’s request to reduce bond; he remained in custody pretrial, pled guilty at a January 3, 2019 hearing, and the court ordered a PSI.
At sentencing the court reviewed PSI, victim and defense statements, considered statutory sentencing factors and ORAS, disapproved intensive program prison placement, and imposed the maximum 36-month term with 84 days credit and financial obligations (court costs and counsel fees) with inmate-account withholding language.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues; the appellate court performed independent review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11	Plea was knowing, voluntary, with court complying with Crim.R.11	Plea was valid but defendant raised no separate challenge	Court found full compliance with Crim.R.11; plea knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered; no non-frivolous plea issue
Sentence (maximum 36 months) — review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	Sentence justified by criminal history, offense seriousness, recidivism risk, PSI and victim safety concerns	Asked for community control or treatment placement; urged mitigation based on substance-abuse history and treatment needs	Court’s maximum sentence within statutory range and supported by record; appellate review found no clear-and-convincing lack of support; sentence affirmed
Disapproval of Intensive Program Prison (IPP)	Court disapproved IPP after considering record factors	Defendant sought treatment placement; contended error in disapproval finding	Defendant ineligible for IPP due to prior second-degree felony imprisonment; any error harmless; affirmed
Order to withhold funds from inmate account to satisfy financial obligations	Court ordered withholding pursuant to applicable administrative code and R.C.; necessary for collection	Defendant offered no meritorious challenge to withholding procedure	Court’s collection order consistent with precedent; affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous and requirement of independent appellate review)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (scope of appellate-court independent review after Anders brief)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 strict/substantial compliance analysis)
State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (2018) (distinguishing constitutional and nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 requirements)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional plea advisements)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006) (DRC authority to deduct certified judgments from inmate accounts)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court duty to consider statutory sentencing principles)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (vacatur required for complete Crim.R.11 noncompliance)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (1991) (guilty plea waiver of appealable errors unless plea not knowing, voluntary, intelligent)