State v. Bowshier

2023 Ohio 959
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 24, 2023
Docket2022-CA-41
StatusPublished

This text of 2023 Ohio 959 (State v. Bowshier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Bowshier, 2023-Ohio-959.]

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, -2-

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, -3-

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 -4-

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 -5-

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? -6-

[DEFENDANT]: No, sir.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 Ohio 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bowshier-ohioctapp-2023.