State v. Barth

2024 Ohio 3226

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 26, 2024
• Docket: 2024CA0006-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Barth, 2024-Ohio-3226.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2024CA0006-M

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE RYAN BARTH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 20CR0738

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: August 26, 2024

CARR, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant, Ryan Barth, appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} In 2020, the Medina County Grand Jury indicted Barth on six counts of nonsupport

of dependents in violation of R.C. 2919.21(B). Barth ultimately pleaded guilty to the charges. The

trial court imposed a five-year term of community control. The trial court set forth a series of

terms and conditions pertaining to the community control sanction and placed Barth under the

supervision of the Medina County Adult Probation Department. At the time Barth was sentenced,

the trial court notified him that it would impose a 12-month prison sentence if he violated the terms

and conditions of community control.

{¶3} On January 3, 2023, Barth’s probation officer filed a statement of violations and

request for community control sanction to be revoked. The probation officer averred that Barth 2

had failed to report to the probation department on multiple occasions, that Barth had failed to

submit to drug screens on multiple occasions, and that Barth had been charged with a second-

degree misdemeanor count of obstructing official business in the Akron Municipal Court. Two

days later, on January 5, 2023, the probation officer filed a second statement of violation indicating

that Barth had failed to pay the minimum monthly child support obligation in violation of his

community control sanction. After initially entering a plea of denial, Barth admitted the violations.

The trial court accepted the admission and found Barth to be in violation of the terms and

conditions of community control. The trial court imposed a 30-day jail sentence with credit for

time served and ordered that all other terms and conditions of community control remain in effect.

{¶4} On December 26, 2023, Barth’s probation officer filed a statement of violation and

request for community control to be revoked based on a new series of violations. Specifically, the

probation officer averred that Barth had continued to fail to report to the probation department,

that Barth had failed to pay the minimum monthly child support obligation in violation of his

community control sanction, and that Barth had been convicted of aggravated possession of drugs

and assault in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Barth denied the charges at the initial

hearing and counsel was appointed on his behalf. Thereafter, the parties appeared for a hearing

where Barth admitted the violations. The trial court accepted the admission and found Barth to be

in violation of the terms and conditions of community control. The trial court imposed a 12-month

term of incarceration and awarded Barth credit for time served.

II.

{¶5} Appellate counsel for Barth has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that she has reviewed the record and determined that there are no viable

issues to be raised in this appeal. Appellate counsel has also requested to withdraw as counsel of 3

record in this matter. A review of the record indicates that Barth was served with a copy of the

Anders brief. On April 30, 2024, this Court issued a magistrate’s order affording Barth an

opportunity to raise any points he feels necessary after his review of the Anders brief. Barth did

not file a response.

{¶6} In the Anders brief, appellate counsel identified two potential issues for appeal but

ultimately concluded that those issues were not viable. Appellate counsel highlighted that the trial

court elected to sentence Barth to a 12-month term of incarceration. However, appellate counsel

observed that the 12-month term was consistent with the notice Barth received at the time he was

originally sentenced in 2022 and, further, that the trial court complied with all of the requisite

sentencing statutes in imposing sentence. Appellate counsel further noted that the trial court did

not hold a separate hearing regarding Barth’s ability to pay child support prior to imposing a

community control condition that Barth was required to meet his monthly child support obligations

as determined by the domestic relations court and the Medina County Child Support Enforcement

Agency. Appellate counsel explained in the Anders brief that the trial court was under no legal

obligation to hold a hearing in this regard. Appellate counsel further noted that the domestic

relations court previously considered Barth’s ability to make payments and, pursuant to this

Court’s decision in State v. Morrow, 2015-Ohio-2627, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.), the trial court was not

required to reconsider the underlying orders that established Barth’s support obligation.

{¶7} Upon this Court's independent examination of the record, we agree that there are

no appealable, non-frivolous issues in this case. See State v. Randles, 2008-Ohio-662, ¶ 6 (9th

Dist.); State v. Hammond, 2016-Ohio-7027, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). Therefore, appellate counsel's request

to withdraw is granted. 4

III.

{¶8} Having reviewed the entire record and having found that no appealable issues exist,

this Court concludes that Barth’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous under Anders. The

motion to withdraw filed by appellate counsel for Barth is granted. The judgment of the Medina

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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 Medina, 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.

DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, P. J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR. 5

APPEARANCES:

YU MI KIM-REYNOLDS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.