State v. Smith, 2020 Ohio 304

During a bench trial in a related case, Justin Smith absconded and cut off his electronic home-detention (EHDP) monitoring bracelet; he was later arrested in Florida and returned to Montgomery County.
Law enforcement seized Smith’s passcode‑protected smartphone; after federal authorities unlocked it, investigators found sexually explicit videos exchanged with the juvenile victim, C.B.
Smith was indicted on 41 felonies arising from the absconsion, theft/destruction of the EHDP bracelet, and the phone videos; he moved to suppress the phone evidence but pled guilty to 20 counts before the suppression ruling was issued; 21 counts were dismissed under the plea agreement.
The trial court sentenced Smith to an aggregate eight‑year prison term (to run concurrently with a 12‑year sentence in the related case) and designated him a Tier II sex offender; consecutive‑sentence findings were made at the hearing but omitted from the written judgment entry.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw, identifying two potential issues (voluntariness of the plea given the suppression issue; cruel and unusual/excessive sentence). The court reviewed the record, found the appeal wholly frivolous, affirmed, allowed counsel to withdraw, and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate the consecutive findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary given the trial court’s stated (but not journalized) inclination on the suppression motion	State: Plea was voluntary; court complied with Crim.R. 11 and told Smith he could wait for suppression ruling	Smith: Plea may be unknowing/ coerced because court indicated it would overrule suppression before ruling	Court: Appeal frivolous; plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; defendant was informed he could defer plea
Whether Smith’s sentence was cruel, unusual, or excessive	State: Each sentence was within statutory ranges; consecutive sentences authorized by statute; not constitutionally cruel or unusual	Smith: Aggregate sentence disproportionate and violates Eighth Amendment	Court: Frivolous; individual sentences lawful and not grossly disproportionate; Eighth Amendment proportionality applies to individual terms, not aggregate here
Whether omission of consecutive‑sentence findings from the journal entry renders the sentence defective	State: Omission is clerical; Bonnell permits nunc pro tunc correction	Smith: Omission could render the judgment deficient	Court: Trial court made required findings on the record; omission is clerical and remand ordered for a nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate findings

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders framework for counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (appellate court duty to examine record after Anders brief)
State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (statutorily authorized sentences generally not Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment)
McDougle v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 68 (statutorily authorized sentences ordinarily not cruel and unusual)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard of review for felony‑sentence modification under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (consecutive‑sentence findings made at hearing must be reflected in journal entry; clerical omission correctable by nunc pro tunc)