State v. Bowshier

2023 Ohio 959
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided March 24, 2023·No. 2022-CA-41·Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO :

:

Appellee : C.A. No. 2022-CA-41 :

v. : Trial Court Case No. 21CR0331 :

JUSTIN W. BOWSHIER : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court)

Appellant :

:

...........

OPINION

Rendered on March 24, 2023 ...........

IAN A. RICHARDSON, Attorney for Appellee JOE CLOUD, Attorney for Appellant .............

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Justin W. Bowshier appeals from his conviction in the Clark County Common Pleas Court after entering a guilty plea to one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend community control, and on June 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Bowshier to two years of community control,

including 180 days of local jail time, with credit for 14 days and the balance of the sentence to be suspended upon Bowshier’s transport to West Central Community Correctional Facility. On June 15, 2022, Bowshier simultaneously filed his motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal.

{¶ 2} Bowshier’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he found no non-frivolous issues for appeal and requesting leave to withdraw, but he provided one potential issue for our review: the lack of a final decision and/or final order by the trial court regarding Bowshier’s motion for reconsideration. Bowshier also filed a pro se brief, challenging his sentence by suggesting that he had considered withdrawing his guilty plea because he did not expect jail time to be part of his community control sentence. In his brief, Bowshier also described his efforts to transfer to West Central Community Correctional Facility and the later disposition related to his parole violation in the same matter. Bowshier had not filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the following reasons, we hereby affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Anders Standard

{¶ 3} When an Anders brief is filed, the appellate court must determine, “after a full examination of all the proceedings,” whether the appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders at 744; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). “An issue is not frivolous merely because the prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply.” State v. White, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28338, 2020-Ohio-5544, ¶ 14, citing State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Rather,

a frivolous appeal is one that presents issues lacking arguable merit, which means that, “on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8, citing Pullen at ¶ 4. If we find that any issue – whether presented by appellate counsel, presented by the defendant (if a pro se brief is filed), or found through an independent analysis – is not wholly frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the defendant. Id. at ¶ 7.

II. Factual Background and Analysis

{¶ 4} In the present case, the Anders brief identifies the following issue that Bowshier’s appellate counsel raised: the lack of a final decision and/or final order by the trial court regarding Bowshier’s motion for reconsideration. Counsel asserted that the lack of a final decision or final order by the trial court “potentially creates an issue of there being no Final Judgment Entry for Appellate Review in the trial court case.” Appellate counsel also sees no non-frivolous arguments regarding this issue. We agree with counsel’s assessment.

{¶ 5} The Supreme Court of Ohio determined that a judgment of conviction is a final appealable order when the order sets forth the manner of conviction and the sentence. State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 18. Because Bowshier’s motion for reconsideration was filed after the judgment of conviction, which included the manner of conviction and the sentence, the trial court’s lack of a final decision or final order regarding Bowshier’s motion for reconsideration was of no

consequence.

{¶ 6} Moreover, an “appeal is perfected upon the filing of a written notice of appeal.” State v. Burns, 2d. Dist. Montgomery 27374, 2018-Ohio-1419, ¶ 11, quoting Jackson Tube Serv., Inc. v. Camaco, L.L.C., 2d Dist. Miami Nos. 2012-CA-19 & 2012-CA-25, 2013-Ohio-2344, ¶ 43, citing R.C. 2505.04. Once a case has been appealed, the “ ‘trial court retains jurisdiction [only] over issues not inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment [on] appeal[ ].’ ” Id. By filing his notice of appeal on the same day as his motion for reconsideration, Bowshier divested the trial court of jurisdiction to reconsider its June 7, 2022, judgment entry of conviction. Thus, counsel’s proposed assignment of error is frivolous.

{¶ 7} Next, in his brief, it appears that Bowshier’s only assignment of error is whether his guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, as he asserts that he did not expect jail time to be a part of his community control sentence, and, thus, spoke to his attorney about withdrawing his guilty plea. However, no motion to withdraw guilty plea was ever submitted.

{¶ 8} The parties entered into a plea agreement, and the following exchange occurred at the plea hearing on May 18, 2022:

[THE COURT]: Before the Court is Case 21-CR-0331, State of Ohio versus Justin Wayne Bowshier. The defendant is charged with aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree.

The Court has been presented with a plea of guilty to that offense.

Document indicates that the parties understand that a presentence

investigation will be conducted prior to disposition, and at the disposition the State is agreeing to recommend community control. Are those all the terms as understood by the State? [PROSECUTOR]: They are, Your Honor. [THE COURT]: Are those all the terms as understood by the Defense? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: They are.

***

[THE COURT]: As to the single charge in the indictment, aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree, how does the defendant wish to proceed? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, Your Honor.

Pursuant to the agreement, the terms of which [sic] been placed on record, Justin would change his originally entered plea of not guilty to one of guilty to the sole count of the indictment, aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony, with the understanding that a presentence investigation would be completed prior to disposition and that the State of Ohio would recommend a sentence of community control. [THE COURT]: You are Justin Wayne Bowshier? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir.

***

[THE COURT]: Are you under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication today?

[DEFENDANT]: No, sir. [THE COURT]: Are you on probation, parole, community control, or post- release control? [DEFENDANT]: No, sir. [THE COURT]: Have you discussed your case and possible defenses with your attorney? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir. [THE COURT]: Are you satisfied with the advice and representation your attorney’s given you? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir.

***

[THE COURT]: Is this your signature on the last page of the plea form? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir. [THE COURT]: Before you signed the document, did you read it and go over it with your attorney? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir. [THE COURT]: Did you understand everything in the document? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir. [THE COURT]: The possible maximum penalty for this offense is 12 months in prison, a $2500 fine, driver’s license suspension of six months to five years, and court costs. Do you understand that?

[DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir. [THE COURT]: If you go to prison, upon your release after serving the time given you by the Court, the Parole Authority will have the option of placing you on post-release control. Do you understand that? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir.

***

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Bowshier, 2023 Ohio 959 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

2023 Ohio 959 (State v. Bowshier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Jackson Tube Serv., Inc. v. Camaco L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 2344 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State v. Brown, 21896 (12-14-2007)
2007 Ohio 6675 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State v. Burns
2018 Ohio 1419 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. White
2020 Ohio 5544 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Baker
893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)