STATE OF OHIO v. TRECE REYNOLDS
Case No. CT2023-0078
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
May 21, 2024
[Cite as State v. Reynolds, 2024-Ohio-1956.]
Hоn. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J., Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J., Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No CR2021-0189. JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
For Plaintiff-Appellee
MOLLY MARTIN
Assistant Prosecutor
27 North Fifth Street, Suite 2
Zanesville, OH 43701
For Defendant-Appellant
APRIL F. CAMPBELL
Campbell Law, LLC
545 Metro Place S., Suite 100
Dublin, OH 43017
{¶1} This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw and Anders brief filed by counsel for Defendant-appellant Trece Reynolds [Reynolds] after his convictions and sentences following negotiated guilty pleas in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. The state has not filed a brief.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On April 8, 2021, the Muskingum County Grand Jury returned an Indictment charging Reynolds with,
Count 1: Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity, with a Major Drug Offender specification, a felony of the first degree in violation of
R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) /2941.1410 ;Count 28: Trafficking in Drugs (Methamphetamine) in an amount equal to or exceeding 100 times the bulk amount, with a Major Drug Offender specificatiоn, a felony of the first degree in violation of
R.C. 2929.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(f) /2941.1410 ;Count 29: Possession of Drugs (Methamphetamine) in an amount equal to or exceeding 100 times the bulk amount, with a Major Drug Offender specification, a felony of the first degree in violation of
R.C. 2925.11(A) /(C)(1)(e) /2941.141 ;Count 30: Trafficking in Drugs (Fentanyl-related compound) in an amount equal to or exceeding 50 grams but less than 100 grams, with a Major Drug Offender specification, a felony of the first degree in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) /(C)(9)(h) /2941.141 ; and
Count 31: Possession of Drugs (Fentanyl-related compound) in an amount equal to or exceeding 50 grams but less than 100 grams, with a Major Drug Offender specification, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) /(C)(11)(f) /2941.141
{¶3} On July 12, 2021, the
{¶4} The trial judge cоnducted a change of plea hearing on July 12, 2021. The trial judge accepted Reynolds‘s guilty pleas and deferred the case for sentencing pending the completion of a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI).
{¶5} Prior to the sentencing hearing, Reynolds absconded for nearly two years. Sent. T., Sept. 25, 2023 at 4. At the time he was picked up, Reynolds had been charged with felonies in two different counties. Id. At sentencing, the state asked for a seventeen-year prison sentence, the maximum minimum sentence for the offenses to which Reynolds pled. Id. Reynolds‘s attorney explained that Reynolds was young but did agree to the facts as set forth by the state. The attorney then asked fоr the trial court to impose
{¶6} The trial judge stated he had reviewed Reynold‘s PSI report. Id. The judge noted that Reynolds had been on the run for almost two years and that he picked up new felony offеnses involving firearms in multiple jurisdictions while absconding. Id. at 7. The trial judge then imposed a mandatory eleven-year prison term for Count One, Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity, with an indefinite sentence of sixteen and one-half years. The trial judge also imposed two thirty-six-month prison terms for Reynolds‘s third-degree felony convictions, concurrent to each other, but consecutive to Reynolds‘s prison term for Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity. Thus, Reynolds was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of fourteen years, eleven of which is mandatory, and an indefinite sentence of nineteen and one-half years. Sentencing Entry, filed Sept. 27, 2023 at 2.
{¶7} Reynolds‘s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Standard of Review - Anders v. California
{¶8} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant‘s counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel must accompany his request with a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably support his сlient‘s appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and, (2) allow his client sufficient time to raise any matters that the client chooses. Id. Once the defendant‘s counsel satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine
{¶9} On December 21, 2023, counsel for Reynolds filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders, informing this Court that Reynolds was provided a copy of the appeal brief and relevant transcripts. We granted appellant‘s counsel leave to file the appellate brief instanter by Judgment Entry filed January 3, 2024. Appellant‘s Anders brief was filed on January 3, 2024. We informed Reynolds by Judgment Entry filed January 29, 2024 that his attorney had filed an Anders brief on his behalf and granted him sixty days from that date, i.e. March 29, 2024, to file a pro se brief. Judgement Entry, filed Jan. 29, 2024. Reynolds has not filed a pro se brief.
{¶10} The record establishes that Reynolds‘s counsel satisfied Anders three requirements. Accordingly, we will proceed to review the proposed assignment of error to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist, keeping in mind that, ”Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in arguable merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because the prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply or because it is uncertain whether a defendant will prevail on the issue on appeal. ‘An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.’ State v. Pullen, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4 (2nd Dist.); State v. Marbury, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶¶ 7-8 (2nd Dist.); State v. Chessman, 2005-Ohio-2511, ¶¶ 16-17 (2nd Dist.).” State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-1416, ¶ 4 (2nd Dist.).
{¶11} Reynolds‘s attorney has set forth one Proposed Assignment of Error,
{¶12} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING REYNOLDS‘S GUILTY PLEAS UNDER
The Guilty Plea
{¶13}
{¶14} The constitutional rights are: (1) a jury trial; (2) confrontation of witnesses against him; (3) the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; (4) that the state must prove the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; and (5) that the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 19. If the trial court fails to strictly comply with these requirements, the defendant‘s plea is invalid. Id. at ¶ 31.
{¶15} The non-constitutional rights that the defendant must be informed of are: (1) the nature of the charges; (2) the maximum penalty involved, which includes, if applicable, an advisement on post-release control; (3) if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or the imposition of community control sanctions; and (4) that after entering a guilty plea or a no contest plea, the court may proceed directly to judgment and sentencing.
{¶17} When reviewing a plea‘s compliance with
Issue for Appellate Review: Whether the record reflects any arguably meritorious issues exist with respect to whether Reynolds‘s guilty plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
{¶18} Evidence of a written waiver form signed by the accused is strong proof that the waiver was valid. State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261 (1988); see North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 374-375 (1979); State v. Dennis, 1997-Ohio-372. In the case at bar, we note a written plea of guilty form was signed by Reynolds and his attorney, and filed in the trial court. In addition, Reynolds acknowledged to the trial judge that he read the plea forms, and he reviewed the plea forms with his attorney. Plea T., July 12, 2021 at 4-5. The plea agreement was read on the record. Id. at 3-4. Reynolds acknowledged that he understood the plea forms. Id. at 5. The trial judge informed Reynolds thаt the
{¶19} Reynolds told the trial judge that he understood the elements of the crimes and the specifications, and further that he would be subject to a mandatory prison sentence on Count 1 of eleven years with the possibility оf an indefinite term of five and one-half years, making it a possible maximum sentence of sixteen and one-half years. Id. at 6. Reynold understood that the major drug offender specification required that eleven years of his sentence be mandatory time. Id.
{¶20} The trial judge explained to Reynolds his right to a jury trial. Plea T. at 12. The trial judge further explained Reynolds‘s right to the confrontation of witnesses against him; that the state must prove the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; and that he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Plea T. at 12-13. The judge also explained the maximum penalty involved, which included an advisement on non-life felony indefinite prison sentences and post-release control. Plea T. at 5-6; 8-9; 10-11. The judge informed Reynolds that he could impose the sentences consecutively or concurrently. Id. at 8-9.
{¶21} The record demonstrates the trial court very carefully adhered to
{¶23} Thus, after independently reviewing the record we find no arguably meritorious issues exist with respect to whether Reynolds‘s guilty pleas were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Sentence
{¶24} Before a trial court imposеs consecutive sentences, it must make specific findings which are delineated in
- The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to
section 2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense. - At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of аny of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶25}
{¶26} Though “a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
{¶27}
(2) The court hearing an appeal under [
R.C. 2953.08(A) ,(B) , or(C) ] shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court‘s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court
abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
- That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under [
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) ];- That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
Issue for Appellate Review: Whether the record reflects any arguably meritorious issues exist with respect to whether Reynolds‘s sentence is cоntrary to law.
{¶28} A failure to make the findings required by
{¶29} In this case, the record does support a conclusion that the trial court made all of the findings required by
{¶30} In the case at bar, the trial judge reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report. The trial judge found that Reynolds committed new felony offenses while he was on the run, awaiting sentencing in this casе. Sent. T. Sept. 25, 2023 at 12. The judge further found that Reynolds committed multiple offenses and that the harm caused by two or more of the offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the
{¶31} In finding that consecutive sentences are warranted in Reynolds‘s case, the trial judge referred to his earlier colloquy. Id. at 12. In that colloquy, the trial judge noted that Reynolds absconded prior to sentencing in this case, and committed new felony offenses in Franklin and Washington counties during that time.
{¶32} The trial judge‘s comments reflect a clear finding by him that “consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime * * * and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of [Reynolds‘s] conduct and to the danger [he] poses to the public,”
{¶34} Thus, after independently reviewing the record we find no arguably meritоrious issues exist with respect to whether Reynolds‘s sentence was contrary to law.
Conclusion
{¶35} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel‘s conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. We therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders.
{¶36} Attorney April Campbell‘s motion to withdraw as counsel for Appellant is hereby granted.
By Gwin, J.,
Delaney, P.J.,
Baldwin, J., concur.