State v. Skapik, 2018 Ohio 2661

David Skapik was convicted after jury trial of multiple felonies and misdemeanors; initial aggregate sentence was 147 months.
This court previously reversed the trial court’s failure to merge certain theft and receiving-stolen-property counts and remanded for the State to elect which counts to proceed on (counts 3/4/5 and counts 10/11 were implicated).
On remand the State elected; the trial court merged counts 4 and 5 into count 3, and count 10 into count 11, and resentenced consistent with the mandate, reducing the aggregate term to 99 months.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, identifying a potential issue regarding whether the trial court’s R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings supported the sentence (and seeking permission to withdraw); Skapik did not file a pro se brief despite extensions.
The appellate court limited de novo review to the sentences affected by the remand (counts 3 and 11) and reviewed whether the court considered statutory sentencing factors, whether R.C. 2929.13(B) required community control, and whether consecutive terms were properly supported.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Skapik)	Held
Whether trial court failed to make or support findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 for the resentenced counts	Trial court made and incorporated adequate R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings; sentence within statutory range	Trial court’s findings are insufficient and sentence may be unsupported/contrary to law	No non-frivolous claim; court found findings were articulated and supported; affirmed
Whether R.C. 2929.13(B) required community control for count 11 (4th-degree felony)	Statute’s CCS requirement has exceptions; higher-degree felonies present here remove the CCS mandate	Argues CCS should have been imposed for the 4th-degree count	Court held CCS was not required given higher-degree felony convictions; CCS argument frivolous
Whether the consecutive sentence on count 11 lacks required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	Trial court made required consecutive-sentence findings at hearing and in entry	Consecutive term is unsupported by statutory findings	No meritorious argument; record supports R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; affirmed
Whether appellate counsel properly filed an Anders brief and whether any other non-frivolous appellate issues exist	Anders filing flagged potential issues but no meritorious claims exist after full record review	Seeks review of resentencing generally	Court agreed with Anders process, found no non-frivolous issues, granted counsel leave to withdraw, affirmed judgment

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for appointed counsel filing brief when no meritorious appeal exists)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Wilson, 95 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (guilty verdicts on remand remain law of the case; limited de novo review of affected sentences)
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (clarifying which sentences are subject to review after remand)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors)
State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio 2013) (trial court not required to articulate detailed reasoning but must consider statutory factors)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio App. 2011) (application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 requirement)
State v. Brewer, 80 N.E.3d 1257 (Ohio App. 2017) (standards for review of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))