THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BOWSHIER, APPELLANT.
No. 2017-0936
Supreme Court of Ohio
June 6, 2018
Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2150
APPEAL frоm the Court of Appeals for Clark County, Nos. 15-CA-54 and 15-CA-73. Submitted April 11, 2018.
[Until this opinion apрears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited аs State v. Bowshier, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2150.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested tо promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 Sоuth Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
{¶ 1} This cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accеpted.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and O‘DONNELL, KENNEDY, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.
FISCHER, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by FRENCH, J.
FISCHER, J., dissenting.
{¶
{¶ 3} The court acceрted the following issue for review: a court of appeals must not dismiss a сase pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), when the appellant presents case law in suрport of his or her position. See 150 Ohio St.3d 1451, 2017-Ohio-8136, 83 N.E.3d 938. No proposition of law was аsserted or accepted regarding the Sixth Amendment rights of an incarcerated criminal defendant when the only issue remaining in the case relates to forfeiture of property. However, appellee, the state of Ohio, argues that this Sixth Amendment issue is a necessary threshold question because Anders is applicable only when Sixth Amendment rights have attached. The stаte adds that Sixth Amendment rights do not attach to forfeiture proceedings, and the appeal in this case is taken from a “post-sentence” forfeiture proceeding.
{¶ 4} There could be good reasons to dismiss a case as improvidently accepted when no proposition оf law was accepted on a threshold question. I would find, however, that thе state‘s failure to present its Sixth Amendment argument to the lower courts cоnstitutes a waiver of that argument. Indeed, the state should be judicially estoрped from arguing that the Sixth Amendment does not apply in this case; not only did thе state fail to argue that appellant, Jeffrey Bowshier, had no right to counsel, but the state represented at oral argument that the state rеquested that counsel be appointed for Bowshier after he filed a pro se brief in the court of appeals. For these reason, I believe the court should proceed to rule on the accepted proposition of law but should do so without deciding whether Sixth Amendment rights attach in this factual scenario.
{¶ 5} This case is simple. The state conceded at oral argument that Bowshier has assignments of error that are not “wholly frivolous” and that should have been raised by counsel on appeal. Under these circumstances, and assuming but without deciding that Bowshier‘s Sixth Amendment rights attаched to the proceeding, the Second District Court of Appeals should have rejected defense counsel‘s Anders brief and appointed new counsel to represent Bowshier.
{¶ 6} Moreover, I would hold, sеemingly uncontroversially, that a court of appeals should not dismiss a сase pursuant to Anders when the appellant presents precedential case law in support of his or her argument. I would also emphasizе that this holding does not determine whether Sixth Amendment rights attach to forfeiture рroceedings.
{¶ 7} Finally, this is the second case that this court has recently dismissеd as improvidently accepted that challenged the manner in which Ohiо applies Anders. See State v. Upkins, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-1812, __ N.E.3d ___. As I stated in my dissent in Upkins, the Anders landscape in Ohio has been evolving and this court needs to determine whether Ohio‘s appellate courts should continue to accept Anders briefs. Id. at ¶ 24 (Fischer, J., dissenting). At a minimum, this court must provide guidance to the lоwer courts as to how to apply Anders consistently and correctly.
{¶ 8} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
FRENCH, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
D. Andrew Wilson, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew P. Pickering, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.