State v. Lewis
2017 Ohio 8604
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Erin N. Lewis was indicted (June 2, 2016) on possession of marijuana (minor misdemeanor), possession of cocaine (fifth-degree felony), and illegal use/possession of drug paraphernalia (fourth-degree misdemeanor).
- Lewis pled guilty to all three counts on August 30, 2016; the court ordered an assessment report which found post‑bond drug use but concluded Lewis was eligible for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC).
- At disposition (Sept. 29, 2016) the trial court granted ILC for two years, imposing substance‑abuse treatment and requirements to pay court costs and appointed counsel fees.
- Lewis’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues, proposing three potential assignments of error (Crim.R. 11 waiver, statutory compliance with R.C. 2951.041(D), and legality of ILC conditions including costs/fees). Lewis did not file a pro se brief.
- The court determined it need not perform a Penson independent review because the order granting ILC is not a final appealable order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly advised Lewis of Crim.R. 11 waiver rights at plea | State contended the plea and advisements were sufficient (implicit via Anders brief framing) | Lewis (raised as possible error) argued potential Crim.R. 11 deficiency | Not reached — appeal dismissed as nonfinal |
| Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2951.041(D) when imposing ILC supervision | State maintained statutory ILC procedures were followed | Lewis asserted the court may have failed to comply with statutory requirements | Not reached — appeal dismissed as nonfinal |
| Whether any ILC conditions (treatment, costs, fees) were contrary to law | State argued conditions were lawful and within court's discretion | Lewis challenged lawfulness of costs and appointed counsel fees as ILC conditions | Not reached — appeal dismissed as nonfinal |
| Whether the order granting ILC is a final, appealable order | State responded that ILC had been granted but did not contend the order was final | Lewis sought appellate review of ILC grant and its conditions | Court held the ILC grant is not a final appealable order; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to file a brief asserting no meritorious grounds for appeal)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (requirement for independent appellate review when counsel files an Anders brief)