[Cite as State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-6183.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 24365
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 10-CR-1859/1
v. :
:
JEFFREY E. WILLIAMS : (Criminal Appeal from
: (Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 2nd day of December, 2011.
.........
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
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
BROCK A. SCHOENLEIN, Atty. Reg. #0084707, Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim,
15 West Fourth Street, Suite 100, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.........
HALL, J.
Jeffrey E. Williams appeals from his conviction and sentence following guilty pleas to
two counts of forgery and one count of theft, all fifth-degree felonies.
After revoking intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC), the trial court filed a
2
November 23, 2010 termination entry sentencing Williams to concurrent twelve-month prison
terms. Williams’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, asserting the absence of any
non-frivolous issue for our review. Counsel also has requested permission to withdraw. The
Anders brief raises three potential issues, each of which counsel has concluded is frivolous.
Despite being given a specific opportunity from this Court to do so, Williams has not filed a
brief of his own.
Upon review, we agree with appellate counsel that the three potential issues he raises
are frivolous. The first issue concerns the trial court’s revocation of ILC. Counsel notes that
revocation of ILC was not mandatory and suggests that revocation was inappropriate here. We
see no arguable merit in this claim. Williams admitted violating his ILC conditions by failing
to report to his probation officer and the drug court. Before accepting the admission, the trial
court informed Williams that it was going to sentence him to prison. Williams made the
admission anyway. The trial court proceeded to revoke ILC, finding him no longer amenable
to intervention. The trial court based this determination on the fact that Williams’s behavior
while on ILC had precluded him from being accepted into “the STOP program” and on the
fact that he had committed additional felonies. The trial court then imposed concurrent
twelve-month prison sentences, which apparently now have expired. We agree with appellate
counsel that no non-frivolous issue exists regarding the trial court’s revocation of ILC or its
imposition of concurrent prison terms.
The second potential issue involves defense counsel’s failure to seek a competency
evaluation after Williams exhibited “violent and self-destructive episodes” while on ILC.
3
Counsel suggests that a competency assessment may have been appropriate based on evidence
that, while being held in jail for new offenses, Williams repeatedly hit his head against a wall
and required stitches. During the revocation hearing, Williams and his attorney attributed this
behavior to depression and withdrawal.
Having reviewed the record, we see insufficient indicia of incompetency to find a
non-frivolous issue as to whether defense counsel provided deficient representation by failing
to seek a competency evaluation. Nor do we see a non-frivolous argument that Williams was
prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise the issue. Williams’s act of hitting his head against a
wall in jail does not negate the fact that he admittedly violated ILC by failing to report to his
probation officer and the drug court. Nor does Williams’s behavior negate the fact that he had
committed additional felonies, thereby justifying the trial court’s decision.
The third potential issue concerns the trial court’s decision to have the charges against
Williams and a co-defendant read together. As its pertains to Williams, the plea-hearing
transcript contains the following reading of the charges by the prosecutor:
“With regard to Count One, Jeffrey Williams and Emily Kujat, on or about May 28,
2010, in Montgomery County, state of Ohio, with purpose to defraud, or knowing he and she
was facilitating a fraud, did utter, possess with purpose to utter, any writing, to wit: a check,
which he and she both knew to have been forged, in violation of 2929.31(A)(3).
“Count Two, Jeffrey Williams and Emily Kujat, on or about May 28, 2010, in
Montgomery County, state of Ohio, with purpose to defraud, or knowing he and she was
facilitating a fraud, did forge any writing of another without that person’s authority, in
violation of 2929.31(A)(1).
4
“With regard to Count Three, Jeffrey Williams, on or about May 28, 2010, with
purpose to deprive the owner, to wit: Karen Metzner, of property or services, did knowingly
and without her consent obtain the control over her property, to wit: checks, which is stolen
property listed in 2913.71.
“All of this is in violation of 2913.02(A)(1), theft, a felony of the fifth degree.”
After the charges were read, the trial court asked Williams and Kujat if they
understood the charges and if the facts alleged were true. Williams and Kujat separately
responded affirmatively to both questions. Appellate counsel suggests, however, that Williams
may have been confused by “the assertion that a man and a woman are both culpable for the
same conduct[.]” As a result, counsel suggests that Williams may not have entered his guilty
pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Upon review, we find nothing confusing about
the prosecutor’s reading of the charges against Williams, who expressed no confusion. We see
no non-frivolous issue for appellate review regarding the validity of Williams’s pleas.
Finally, pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, we independently have
reviewed the record in this case. Having done so, we agree with the assessment of appointed
appellate counsel that there are no non-frivolous issues for our review. Counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation is granted, and the judgment of the Montgomery County
Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
..............
DONOVAN and FROELICH, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Carley J. Ingram
5
Brock A. Schoenlein
Jeffrey E. Williams
Hon. Timothy N. O’Connell