[Cite as State v. Wiggins, 2014-Ohio-4965.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
HERBERT WIGGINS
Defendant-Appellant
Appellate Case No. 26041
Trial Court Case No. 2012-CR-1999
(Criminal Appeal from
(Common Pleas Court)
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 7th day of November, 2014.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts
Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JEFFREY T. GRAMZA, Atty. Reg. No. 0053392, 131 North Ludlow Street, Suite 1210, Dayton,
Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
HERBERT A. WIGGINS, Inmate No. 667-580, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 7010,
2
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
Defendant-Appellant
.............
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Upon the filing of an Anders brief in this case, we are asked to decide whether
the record indicates any potential assignments of error having arguable merit. A thorough and
independent review of the entire record, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed2d 493 (1967), reveals no meritorious issues for appellate review.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 2} On June 19, 2014, appellate counsel for Appellant, Herbert Wiggins, filed a
brief under the authority of Anders v. California, indicating that he could not find a potential
assignment of error having arguable merit. On June 25, 2014, Wiggins was granted 60 days to
file a pro se brief assigning any errors for review by this court. Wiggins did not file a brief.
Subsequently, on September 11, 2014, the State filed a motion to submit the appeal for decision
on the merits because Wiggins had failed to file a brief. Our task then, was to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine if any potential assignment of error, having
arguable merit, existed.
{¶ 3} The record indicates that Wiggins was indicted on two counts of Murder with
firearms specifications, one count of Having Weapons Under Disability, and one count of Illegal
Possession of a Firearm in a Liquor-Permit Premises.
{¶ 4} The parties began a jury trial on December 9 and 10, 2013. After the State’s
first witness completed his testimony, Wiggins informed the court that he wished to enter a plea
of guilty as charged, pursuant to a plea bargain that included an agreed aggregate prison sentence
3
of eighteen years to life. The court then conducted an extensive and thorough plea colloquy.
During the colloquy, the trial court advised Wiggins that by entering a plea of guilty, he was
waiving his right to appeal the court’s rulings on pretrial motions. Wiggins expressed to the court
that he understood all of the information and wished to enter a plea of guilty. The trial court
subsequently accepted Wiggins’ plea of guilty to the charges contained in the indictment.
{¶ 5} After accepting the plea, the trial court merged the Murder counts and proceeded
to sentencing. The trial court considered Wiggins’ pre-sentence investigation from a prior case,
Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Case No. 2011 CR 3482, for which Wiggins was
already serving a prison term. Wiggins also waived a new pre-sentence investigation. The trial
court then sentenced Wiggins in accordance with the agreement, to an aggregate sentence of
eighteen years to life, to be served concurrently with the sentence he was serving as a result of
Case No. 2011 CR 3482. At the time of his plea and sentence, Wiggins was represented by legal
counsel.
{¶ 6} Although Wiggins’ appellate counsel did not identify any error of the trial court
prejudicial to Wiggins or any potentially meritorious issue that might be argued, he did request
this court to consider several potential assignments of error.
{¶ 7} The first potential assignment of error is whether the trial court erred in failing
to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11 in conducting the plea colloquy and in accepting
the guilty pleas. The trial court clearly satisfied all such requirements. The transcripts
demonstrate that Wiggins knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered pleas of guilty to the
indictment, and that the proceedings were in compliance with applicable law.
{¶ 8} The second potential assignment of error is whether the trial court erred in
4
imposing a sentence upon Appellant that was contrary to law or that constituted an abuse of
discretion. The record demonstrates that the trial court imposed the sentence that was jointly
recommended by the parties and was in accordance with law.
{¶ 9} Finally, the third potential assignment of error is whether Appellant was denied
his constitutional right of effective assistance of counsel. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and there is no indication that Wiggins was denied this right.
{¶ 10} Under Anders v. California, we have an independent duty to review the record
to determine if there are any potential assignments of error having arguable merit. The court has
reviewed the entire record, including the transcripts of the motion to suppress, partial jury trial,
plea hearing, and sentencing. We note that when Wiggins entered a plea of guilty, the trial court
specifically informed Wiggins that his plea of guilty would waive his right to appeal his pre-trial
motions.
{¶ 11} Based on our review, we find no potential assignments of error having arguable
merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
.............
DONOVAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Carley J. Ingram
5
Jeffrey T. Gramza
Herbert Wiggins
Hon. Steven K. Dankof