State v. Pope, 2019 Ohio 4100

Byron Pope pleaded guilty in two consolidated Montgomery County cases to one count of possession of cocaine in each; other counts were dismissed.
He was sentenced (September 14, 2018) to concurrent 12‑month prison terms (the statutory maximum for a fifth‑degree felony), ordered served at the ODRC Corrections Reception Center.
Montgomery County is a "target" county under House Bill 49 (R.C. 2929.34), which generally requires certain fifth‑degree felony terms be served locally unless an exception applies.
The presentence investigation report showed two prior guilty pleas to burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), which—at the time of sentencing—were listed as offenses of violence under R.C. 2901.01.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief raising two potential issues (application of HB 49/community confinement and whether the 12‑month sentence was proper). The court conducted an independent Anders review, found no non‑frivolous issues, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HB 49 required local/community confinement rather than placement in an ODRC institution	State: HB 49 exception applies because Pope had prior convictions that qualified as offenses of violence, so ODRC placement was permissible	Pope: HB 49 should have mandated community corrections/local confinement	Held: Exception applied (prior burglary convictions were offenses of violence at sentencing), so ODRC placement was proper
Whether the 12‑month concurrent sentences were contrary to law or unsupported by the record	State: Sentences are within the authorized range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; record supports sentence given criminal history and post‑release control violation	Pope: Sentence excessive/should be reduced	Held: Sentences are within statutory range, the court stated it considered required factors, and the record (criminal history, offenses committed while on post‑release control) supports the sentences; no clear and convincing evidence to vacate

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (counsel must file brief identifying potential issues and appellate court must independently review for frivolousness)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (Anders review obligation reaffirmed)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1234 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing showing that record fails to support sentence)
State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio App. 2013) (trial court not required to articulate detailed findings when imposing sentence)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio App. 2011) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 sentencing considerations)