[Cite as State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-9.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-31
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-571
:
TIMOTHY JONES : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 3rd day of January, 2020.
...........
JOHN M. LINTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0097715, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County
Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
BRYAN SCOTT HICKS, Atty. Reg. No. 0065022, P.O. Box 359, Lebanon, Ohio 45036
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
WELBAUM, P.J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Timothy Jones, appeals from his conviction for carrying
a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A), the revocation of his community
control sanctions, and his sentence. On August 30, 2019, Jones’ appellate counsel filed
a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d
493 (1967), indicating there are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal.
Jones’ appellate counsel raised two potential assignments of error for review.
{¶ 2} On September 12, 2019, we notified Jones that his appellate counsel found
no meritorious claim for review and granted him 60 days to file a pro se brief assigning
any errors. Jones, however, did not file a pro se brief.
{¶ 3} After conducting an independent review of the entire record as required by
Anders, including the presentence investigation report, we find no issues of arguable
merit for Jones to advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be
affirmed.
Pertinent Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 4} On November 21, 2016, the Clark County Grand Jury indicted Jones on two
offenses: having weapons under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)), a felony of the third
degree, and carrying a concealed weapon (R.C.2923.12(A)), a felony of the fourth
degree. On May 3, 2017, Jones entered a plea of guilty to the carrying a concealed
weapon charge. In exchange, the State dismissed the more serious charge of having
weapons under disability.
{¶ 5} At Jones’ plea hearing, the trial court fully complied with the requirements of
Crim.R. 11(C)(2) for accepting pleas. Sentencing was held on May 24, 2017, and Jones
-3-
was placed on community control sanctions for a period of five years. The trial court
advised Jones that if he violated the terms of his community control he could be
sentenced to a prison term of 18 months. The special conditions of his community
control included that Jones would serve 180 days of local incarceration and that he would
be required to obey federal, state, and local laws. Dkt. No. 13, p. 3-4.
{¶ 6} On December 21, 2017, the trial court found that Jones had violated the
terms of his community control by failing to report to the jail as ordered. The trial court
added 60 days to Jones’ jail sentence as a sanction and once again notified Jones that a
violation would result in a prison sentence of 18 months. That violation and sanction was
appealed and affirmed by this court on October 12, 2018. State v. Timothy L. Jones, 2d
Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-10, 2018-Ohio-4143.
{¶ 7} On July 13, 2018, Jones was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a
deadly weapon while in detention (R.C. 2923.313(B)), a fifth-degree felony, in Clark C.P.
No. 2010-CR-45. Five days later, the trial court sentenced Jones to a prison term of 12
months. That conviction was appealed and affirmed by this court on April 26, 2019.
State v. Timothy Jones, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-94, 2019-Ohio-1548. The conviction
was the result of conduct committed while Jones was under community control sanctions
in this case.
{¶ 8} After the necessary preliminary proceedings, on April 1, 2019, a hearing was
held to determine whether Jones’ community control sanctions should be revoked.
Since Jones admitted to violating the terms of his community control, the trial court found
that Jones violated its terms and conducted a sentencing hearing pursuant to R.C.
2929.19. The trial court then sentenced Jones to a prison term of 18 months with 183
-4-
days of jail-time credit, and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to the 12-
month sentence previously imposed in Case No. 2010-CR-45. Thereafter, Jones filed a
timely notice of appeal. Dkt. No. 39, p. 2.
Discussion and Conclusion
{¶ 9} In an Anders review, we are required to decide “after a full examination of all
the proceedings,” whether an appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84-85, 109 S.Ct.
346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Issues are not frivolous simply because the State “can be
expected to present a strong argument in reply.” State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Instead, an issue will lack arguable merit “if on the
facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for
reversal.” Id.
{¶ 10} After conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders,
we agree with Jones’ appellate counsel that, based on the facts and relevant law, there
are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Jones’ appellate counsel
suggested that two potential non-frivolous issues may be: (1) whether the trial court erred
by making the sentence consecutive instead of concurrent; and (2) that Jones allegedly
did not understand his sentence.
{¶ 11} At sentencing, the trial court considered that Jones had committed a felony
while on community control and that during the new felony, he possessed a shank while
in jail. The trial court also considered the fact that Jones had a lengthy criminal history
since 1996. Jones’ criminal history included convictions for several offenses of violence
-5-
including assault, negligent assault, domestic violence, and aggravated assault. The
trial court also noted that Jones had been convicted of criminal damaging, escape, and
possession of drugs. The trial court further expressed concern that Jones’ community
control sentences had been previously revoked. Probation Violation Hearing Trans.
(Apr. 1, 2019), p. 14.
{¶ 12} The trial court made all of the necessary findings supporting the imposition
of consecutive sentencing at the hearing and in the corresponding sentencing entry. Id.
at p. 15; Dkt. No. 39, p. 2. Although appellate counsel surmised that Jones did not fully
understand his sentence, there was clearly no error in that regard. The trial court clearly
stated the sentence on the record at the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry.
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the potential issues raised by
appellate counsel have no arguable merit. After conducting an independent review of
the record as required by Anders, we also find no issues with arguable merit for Jones to
advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
FROELICH, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
John M. Lintz
Bryan Scott Hicks
Timothy Jones
Hon. Richard J. O’Neill