State v. Reid
2018-Ohio-5447
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Darrell Reid was indicted for third-degree domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25) after an August 11, 2017 incident in which he allegedly choked, pulled hair from, and punched his then‑girlfriend; officers observed head swelling and scalp hair loss.
- Reid initially pled not guilty; on December 4, 2017 he agreed to a plea deal to a fourth‑degree felony domestic violence charge and entered a no contest plea after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- The state’s proffer and the plea hearing reflected the amended charge under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) (fourth‑degree) based on a prior domestic‑violence conviction; the written sentencing entry incorrectly cited R.C. 2919.25(D)(4).
- At sentencing the court considered Reid’s extensive criminal history (multiple felonies and misdemeanors), victim impact statement, presentence report, and Reid’s mental‑health/substance‑use history; it imposed 17 months’ imprisonment and up to three years postrelease control.
- Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, asserting no nonfrivolous issues; the Sixth District conducted the Anders review despite a contemporaneous decision changing its Anders practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing entry’s statutory citation (D)(4) vs (D)(3) invalidates the conviction/sentence | State: Plea and sentence reflect conviction for a fourth‑degree domestic violence offense as amended; citation was typographical | Reid: Challenged sentence as contrary to law (possible basis: sentencing error) | Court: Citation error was clerical; remand for nunc pro tunc correction but conviction and 17‑month sentence affirmed |
| Whether Reid’s 17‑month sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) | State: Sentence is within statutory range, postrelease control notified, and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | Reid: Argued sentence is contrary to law (via Anders possible assignment) | Court: Sentence within 6–18 month range for fourth‑degree felony, court considered sentencing statutes and factors; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders | State: Appellate counsel followed Anders procedure and notified client; no meritorious grounds found | Reid: Did not file a pro se brief or oppose withdrawal | Court: Performed independent review, found appeal frivolous, granted counsel’s withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when counsel seeks to withdraw asserting appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (standard for reviewing felony sentences in light of statutory sentencing requirements)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (sentencing court need not use specific language to show consideration of sentencing statutes)
- State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (appellate procedure discussion relevant to Anders withdrawals)