[Cite as State v. Lawless, 2013-Ohio-1236.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25424
v. : T.C. NO. 11CR4162
BRANDON A. LAWLESS : (Criminal appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 29th day of March , 2013.
..........
CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W.
Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0041420, 5 N. Williams Street, Wright-Dunbar
Business Village, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
BRANDON A. LAWLESS, #A668780, London Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 69,
London, Ohio 43140
Defendant-Appellant
..........
PER CURIAM:
[Cite as State v. Lawless, 2013-Ohio-1236.]
{¶ 1} Appointed counsel for defendant-appellant Brandon Lawless submitted an
appellate brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.E.2d 493
(1967) on October 18, 2012, alleging that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal.
After a thorough review of the record, this Court agrees that the trial court’s proceedings
were proper, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
{¶ 2} Lawless was charged with one count of possession of cocaine (27 grams but
less than 100 grams), a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C. § 2925.11. Lawless
was arrested on November 28, 2011, released, and then re-arrested on February 7, 2012.
From February 7, until his hearing he was subject to electronic home monitoring, except he
was allowed to go to his grandmother’s funeral on April 2. He pled guilty to the charge on
August 29, 2012, and was sentenced on September 27, 2012, to three years of imprisonment,
five years post-release control, and his driver’s license was suspended for three and a half
years.
{¶ 3} Lawless filed a motion for jail time credit on September 13, 2012, which
could not be calculated at the time. During sentencing the trial court noted that jail time
credit does not accrue for electronic home detention.
{¶ 4} Further, Lawless filed a motion to suppress evidence on February 29, 2012,
however, due to an agreed sentence of three years, the motion was orally withdrawn at the
hearing.
{¶ 5} We notified Lawless of his appellate counsel’s representations and afforded
him ample time to file a pro se brief. None has been received. This matter is now before
us for our independent review of the record.
{¶ 6} Lawless’ appellate counsel has identified two possible issues for appeal
3
addressed below.
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE APPELLANT’S
MOTION TO CREDIT HIM FOR TIME SERVED WHILE ON ELECTRONIC HOME
DETENTION
{¶ 8} This court ruled previously on this issue in State v. Holt, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 18035, 2000 WL 569930 (May 12, 2000). In that case we compared
language from R.C. § 2967.191 (relating to jail-time credit) with previous R.C. §
2929.23(A)(4), which is similar to current R.C. § 2929.01(P) that relates to the definition
of house arrest. Our Court decided that while the root word “confine” is used in both
statutes, in R.C. § 2929.23 it was implied that the definition of house arrest only applied to
post-conviction confinement and therefore was inapplicable to the pre-conviction electronic
home detention program. Lawless was not subject to electronic home monitoring after his
conviction and therefore he is not entitled to jail-time credit. Thus, his argument is wholly
frivolous.
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISAPPROVED SHOCK
INCARCERATION AND INTENSIVE PROGRAM PRISON AT SENTENCING, BY NOT
STATING SPECIFIC PARTICULARIZED REASONS FOR ITS DISAPPROVAL
{¶ 10} R.C. § 5120.032 states that for a felony of the first degree these programs
are not available. Lawless was charged with a first degree felony and is therefore not
eligible to participate in either program.
{¶ 11} Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, we have conducted an
independent review of the entire record and, having done so, we agree with the appointed
4
counsel that there are no arguably meritorious issues to present on appeal.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
..........
FAIN, P.J., DONOVAN, J., and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Carley J. Ingram
Michael C. Thompson
Brandon A. Lawless
Hon. Mary L. Wiseman