State v. Taylor
2015 Ohio 420
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Taylor pled guilty to three burglary counts and one breaking-and-entering count.
- Trial court sentenced to concurrent 12-month terms for burglary and two years of community control for breaking and entering, consecutive to another case.
- New appellate counsel sought permission to withdraw under Anders v. California, claiming no nonfrivolous issues.
- Taylor did not file a merit brief; counsel asserted one arguable issue: lack of explicit reasoning for consecutive sentences.
- Court discussed the duties of counsel under Anders and decisions governing withdrawal, and reviewed the merits of the intended assignment regarding consecutive-sentence findings.
- Court remanded for nunc pro tunc incorporation of the required consecutive-sentence findings, while affirming the otherwise frivolous nature of the issue and granting counsel’s withdrawal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consecutive-sentence findings were properly made and entered | State argues findings were supported by the record | Taylor's counsel contends the findings were not properly included in the journal entry | Findings were supported but not entered; remand for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (no-merit Anders procedure for appellate withdrawal)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (requirement to cite anything in record that might arguably support appeal)
- McCoy, Smith v. Robbins, 534 U.S. 533 (2000) (context of counsel's duties when no-merit brief; ethical considerations)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3117) (nunc pro tunc correction on sentencing journal entries)
- United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 1996) (independent review vs. Anders procedures; caution against overreach)