State v. SchirmerState v. Schirmer
Case Information
*1
[Cite as
State v. Schirmer
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case Nos. 25147 Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case Nos. 25148 :
v. : Trial Court Case Nos. 2011-CR-3171
: Trial Court Case Nos. 2011-CR-2545 STANLEY D. SCHIRMER :
: (Criminal Appeal from Defendant-Appellant : (Common Pleas Court) :
. . . . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N Rendered on the 30 th day of November, 2012.
. . . . . . . . . . .
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. #0020084, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attоrney for Plaintiff-Appellee MELISSA REPLOGLE, Atty. Reg. #0084215, Replogle Law Office, LLC, 2312 Far Hills Avenue, #145, Dayton, Ohio 45419
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
FAIN, J. In these two appeals, defendant-appellant Stanley Schirmer appeals from his
convictions and sentenсes, in two indicted cases, for two counts of Theft, and one count of
Burglary, following guilty pleas in each case. Schirmer’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a
brief under the authority of
Anders v. California
,
I. The Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} In Case No. 2011-CR-3171 in the trial court, Schirmer was indicted for Theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), of property listed in R.C. 2913.71 (checks belonging to Wanda Morgan), a felony of the fifth degree; for five counts of Forgery, in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), felonies of the fifth degree; and, in a separate indictment, for Theft of currency having a value of $500 or morе from Fifth Third Bank, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). Case No. 25147 in this court is his appeal from the judgment in that case. In Case No. 2011-CR-02545 in the trial court, Schirmer was indicted for
Burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. Case No. 25148 in this court is his appeal from the judgment in that case. In the Burglary case, Schirmer moved for a competency evaluation and pled not
guilty by reason of insanity. A competency evaluation was ordered; it appears that a competency hearing was held; and the trial court found Schirmer competеnt to stand trial. Eventually, Schirmer and the State entered into a plea bargain covering both
casеs. Schirmer agreed to plead guilty to the two Theft charges and the Burglary charge; the State agreеd to dismiss the five Forgery charges, and to cap Schirmer’s total sentence at eighteen months. The triаl court held a plea hearing covering both cases, accepted the pleas, and ordered a pre-sentence investigation.
{¶ 6} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Schirmer to twelve months – the maximum – on each of the Theft offenses, and to eighteen months (the maximum sentencе being 36 months) for the Burglary offense, with all sentences to be served concurrently, for a total sentence of eighteen months. The trial court also ordered restitution in the amount of $480 to James Zadbell, the viсtim of the Burglary, and in the amount of $615 to Fifth Third Bank, the victim of one of the Theft offenses. Schirmer did not object tо the amount of restitution ordered.
{¶ 7} From his convictions and sentences, Schirmer appeals.
II. No Potential Assignments of Error Having Arguable Merit Found Assigned counsel having filed an Anders brief, this court afforded Schirmer the opportunity to file his own, pro se brief, by entry dated August 22, 2012. He has not done so. We have independently reviewed the entire record of both appeals. The plea hearing was conducted in full compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The trial court specifically advised Schirmer that by pleading guilty he would be giving up the ability to challenge any pre-trial rulings on appeal. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Schirmer did not understand the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. The sentence imposed was consistent with the agreement that Schirmer’s total
sentence would be capped at eighteen months. The specific sentences imposed for the charges to *4 which Schirmer pled guilty were authorized by 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. 86, which applied to him beсause he was sentenced after its effective date. Because the trial court did not impose consecutive sentences, it was not required to make the findings specified in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). We find no arguable merit to a claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, or an abuse of discretion. Without cоnsecutive sentencing, the maximum sentence available was thirty-six months, for Burglary; the aggregate sentenсe imposed was eighteen months, half of that maximum. We have reviewed the pre-sentence investigаtion report. It reflects that Schirmer has been convicted of misdemeanor offenses seventeen times, and that he has been convicted of felony offenses, before these, twelve times, including four previous Burglaries and four previous Thefts, the most recent of which was in 2008. The trial court referred to Sсhirmer’s extensive criminal record when imposing sentence, and noted that when probation and community control sanctions have been imposed, they have generally been unsuccessful, which is refleсted in the pre-sentence investigation report. We conclude that the record in these two аppeals does not support any potential
assignments of error having arguable merit.
III. Conclusion This court having found no potential assignments of еrror having arguable merit,
in either appeal, the judgments of the trial court in Case Nos. 2011-CR-3171 and 2011-CR-02545 are Affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
GRADY, P.J., and HALL, J., concur.
[Cite as
State v. Schirmer
,
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Carley J. Ingram
Melissa Replogle
Hon. Mary K. Huffman