[Cite as State v. Lawhorn, 2017-Ohio-828.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 28295
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
KEITH A. LAWHORN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 2015 12 3913
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 8, 2017
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Keith A. Lawhorn, appeals the judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of aggravated possession of drugs
and one count of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On December 14, 2015, the Akron Police Department set up a controlled purchase
of fentanyl between a confidential informant and Lawhorn, which resulted in the confidential
informant purchasing 8.61 grams of fentanyl from Lawhorn. Following the controlled purchase,
law enforcement followed Lawhorn to a residence located on Upson Street in Akron, Ohio,
which Lawhorn entered using a key. That same day, law enforcement obtained a search warrant
for the Upson Street residence. On December 16, 2015, Lawhorn was arrested pursuant to a
federal arrest warrant. Law enforcement searched Lawhorn’s person during the arrest, at which
time they discovered two bindles containing .11 grams of fentanyl. Law enforcement then
2
informed Lawhorn that they had a warrant to search the Upson Street residence. Lawhorn
informed law enforcement that more fentanyl was located at that residence. Law enforcement
subsequently brought Lawhorn to the Upson Street residence, where he directed the officers to
an additional 8.93 grams of fentanyl and a digital scale located inside the house.
{¶3} The Summit County Grand Jury indicted Lawhorn on one count of aggravated
possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1), a fifth-degree felony, and one count
of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), a fourth-
degree misdemeanor. Lawhorn pleaded not guilty to the offenses contained in the indictment
and the matter proceeded through the pretrial process. Lawhorn subsequently filed a motion to
unseal the search warrant that was executed. The trial court granted that motion. Lawhorn also
filed a suppression motion arguing that the search warrant failed to set forth probable cause that
evidence of a crime would be discovered at the Upson Street residence. The trial court
ultimately denied Lawhorn’s suppression motion following a hearing on the matter. The matter
then proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶4} At trial, the State presented four witnesses to testify on its behalf. Following the
State’s case-in-chief, Lawhorn made a Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, which the
trial court denied. The defense thereafter rested without calling any witnesses. The jury
ultimately found Lawhorn guilty of both counts contained in the indictment. The trial court
sentenced Lawhorn to 11 months in prison.
{¶5} Lawhorn filed this timely appeal.
II.
{¶6} On October 19, 2016, Lawhorn’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has reviewed the record and concluded
3
that there are no viable issues to be pursued on appeal. Lawhorn’s counsel also moved to
withdraw as counsel of record in this matter. The record indicates that Lawhorn was served with
a copy of his appellate counsel’s brief, and this Court issued a magistrate’s order affording
Lawhorn an opportunity to raise arguments after review of the Anders brief. Lawhorn has not
submitted additional arguments for our consideration.
{¶7} In his Anders brief, Lawhorn’s counsel identified two possible issues for appeal,
but concluded that they were not viable. Specifically, counsel questioned whether Lawhorn’s
convictions for the drug-related offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and against the
manifest weight of the evidence. However, upon review of the trial and transcripts, as well as
the applicable law, counsel concluded that the trial court did not err in finding Lawhorn guilty of
those offenses.
{¶8} Upon this Court’s own full, independent examination of the record, we agree that
there are no appealable, non-frivolous issues in this case. See State v. Randles, 9th Dist. Summit
No. 23857, 2008–Ohio–662, ¶ 6; State v. Lowe, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 97CA006758, 1998 WL
161274 (Apr. 8, 1998). Accordingly, we grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.
III.
{¶9} Having reviewed the entire record and having found that no appealable issues
exist, we conclude that Lawhorn’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous under Anders. The
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Lawhorn’s appellate
counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is hereby granted.
Judgment affirmed.
4
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
NICHOLAS KLYMENKO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
State v. Lawhorn
Combined Opinion