State v. Martin
2017 Ohio 4144
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Tracy Martin was indicted on multiple counts: five aggravated vehicular-assault counts, five vehicular-assault counts, resisting arrest, and OVI; he pleaded guilty to three aggravated-vehicular-assault counts and two vehicular-assault counts; remaining counts were dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced Martin to five years on each aggravated-vehicular-assault count and 18 months on each vehicular-assault count.
- The court ordered two aggravated-vehicular-assault sentences to run consecutively to each other and concurrent with the other counts, producing a ten-year aggregate sentence.
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, concluding the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw after advising Martin and offering him opportunity to respond.
- This court independently reviewed the record, agreed the appeal was frivolous, but noted the sentencing-entry omitted the court’s oral consecutive-sentence findings.
- The court affirmed the judgment, denied counsel’s withdrawal motion, and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to include the statutory consecutive-sentence findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is frivolous under Anders | State argued no arguable, prejudicial error; appeal frivolous | Martin (via Anders counsel) offered no meritorious grounds after review | Court agreed appeal was frivolous and decided merits without new counsel |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders | State supported counsel’s motion to withdraw based on Anders procedures | Martin opposed or had opportunity to respond; counsel must ensure adequacy of review | Court overruled counsel’s withdrawal motion, retaining counsel because clerical correction needed |
| Whether sentencing-entry must include consecutive-sentence findings | State relied on oral findings at sentencing as controlling | Martin noted omission from written sentencing entry | Court held omission was clerical and subject to nunc pro tunc correction but affirmed sentence |
| Whether remand for nunc pro tunc entry was required | State asked to correct entry to reflect oral findings | Martin sought proper written record; requested correction | Court remanded for nunc pro tunc order to include consecutive-sentence findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Freels v. Hills, 843 F.2d 958 (6th Cir. 1988) (applying Anders principles)
- In re Booker, 133 Ohio App.3d 387 (1st Dist.) (appellate review may proceed without new counsel if appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (clerical omission of consecutive-sentence findings in entry may be corrected by nunc pro tunc order)