State v. Kubat, 2018 Ohio 3088

Defendant Thomas E. Kubat (then ~32) was charged in a 22-count indictment for sexual offenses against a minor (counts covering Sept. 2011–July 2012).
Kubat pled no contest to five counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; the trial court originally imposed five-year terms on each count, with two concurrent groups run consecutively for a total of ten years.
This court previously reversed the sentence and remanded because the trial court failed to make the required findings for consecutive sentences; all other rulings (including denial of suppression) were affirmed.
On remand the trial court made the statutory findings and reimposed the same 10-year sentence; Kubat appealed from that re-sentencing.
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; Kubat was notified, given time to file a pro se brief, requested and received an extension but did not file one; a late pro se addendum was overruled as untimely.
The appeal challenged the re-sentencing; the court conducted an independent review and affirmed, finding the trial court’s findings for consecutive and maximum sentences supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Anders procedure / counsel withdrawal	State: Counsel complied with Anders requirements and provided record and notice to defendant; no arguable issues remain.	Kubat: Implicitly sought to file pro se materials but missed deadline; argued matters via late addendum.	Anders procedure satisfied; late pro se addendum overruled; counsel's motion to withdraw granted.
Lawfulness of five-year (maximum) sentences on each count	State: Five years per count is within statutory maximum and not contrary to law.	Kubat: Argued sentence unsupported by competent, credible evidence.	Court: Individual five-year terms are lawful; maximum findings not specially required.
Imposition of consecutive sentences	State: Trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at re-sentencing and in entry (necessity, non-disproportionality, course-of-conduct/greater harm).	Kubat: Argued consecutive terms unsupported.	Court: Trial court made the necessary findings on the record and in the judgment entry; consecutive sentences affirmed.
Consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors	State: Court considered purposes (punish/protect) and statutory seriousness/recidivism factors (victim’s age, harm, allocution/remorse).	Kubat: Argued sentencing was not supported by competent evidence of those factors.	Court: Record shows consideration of required factors; findings supported; sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))