STATE OF OHIO v. VERNON WHITE, JR.
Appellate Case Nos. 2014-CA-54, 2014-CA-55, 2014-CA-56
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY
January 9, 2015
[Cite as State v. White, 2015-Ohio-28.]
HALL, J.
Trial Court Case No. 13-CR-604 (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on the 9th day of January, 2015.
RYAN A. SAUNDERS, Atty. Reg. No. 0091678, Clark County Prosecutor‘s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
WILMER J. DECHANT, JR., Atty. Reg. No. 0085084, Hammond Stier and Stadnicar, 3836 Dayton-Xenia Road, Beavercreek, Ohio 45432 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} This matter comes before us on three consolidated appeals by defendant-appellant Vernon White, Jr. In case number 2014-CA-54, he appeals from his
{¶ 2} The trial court conducted a plea hearing in each of the foregoing cases. After engaging in
{¶ 3} On September 25, 2014, White‘s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the absence of any non-frivolous issues for our review. We notified White of the Anders brief and invited him to submit a pro se brief. White did not respond, and the
{¶ 4} Although counsel‘s Anders brief does not identify any potential issues for appeal, we have undertaken an independent review of the record, including the plea and sentencing hearing transcripts. Having performed that review, we agree that no non-frivolous issues exist. The plea-hearing transcripts reflect full compliance with
{¶ 5} During the plea hearing, the trial court also once incorrectly referred to White‘s failure-to-appear offense as a third-degree felony. (March 17, 2014 Tr. at 3). On several other occasions during the hearing, however, the trial court correctly identified it as a fourth-degree felony. (Id. at 4, 7, 12-13). The trial court also properly advised White of the potential sentence for a fourth-degree felony. (Id. at 7). Therefore, we see no non-frivolous issue arising from the trial court‘s isolated misstatement. Finally, we note that the trial court properly advised White that he could receive an additional twelve-month prison sentence for having committed a felony while on post-release control and that such a sentence, if imposed, would be consecutive. See State v. Landgraf, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014 CA 12, 2014-Ohio-5448.
{¶ 6} With regard to sentencing, White‘s sentences were within the authorized statutory range, and the trial court considered the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing. The trial court also made the findings necessary under
(a) 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.(b) 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 any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 8} Having conducted our independent review, we agree with appointed appellate counsel‘s assessment that no non-frivolous issues exist for appellate review. Accordingly, the judgment of the Clark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Copies mailed to:
Ryan A. Saunders
Wilmer J. Dechant, Jr.
Vernon White, Jr.
Hon. Richard J. O‘Neill