State v. Chandler

2025 Ohio 3088

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: CT2024-0120
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Chandler, 2025-Ohio-3088.]

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. CT2024-0120

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2024-394 KYMM V. CHANDLER, Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: August 28, 2025

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: JOSEPH PALMER, Assistant Prosecutor for Plaintiff-Appellee; APRIL CAMPBELL, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Baldwin, P.J.

{¶1} The appellant, Kymm V. Chandler, appeals his convictions and sentence

on one count of Trafficking in Cocaine and one count of Endangering Children. The

appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} On June 27, 2024, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted the appellant

on one count of Trafficking in Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), one count of

Endangering Children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), and one count of Illegal

Manufacture of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A). {¶3} On September 30, 2024, the State dismissed one count of Illegal

Manufacture of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A). The appellant entered a plea of

guilty to one count of Trafficking in Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and one

count of Endangering Children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) pursuant to a plea

agreement. The trial court sentenced the appellant to six years in prison.

{¶4} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and his appellate counsel filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967), in which counsel sets forth the following potential assignment of error:

{¶5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING CHANDLER’S GUILTY

PLEAS UNDER CRIM.R. 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING HIM.”

{¶6} The State of Ohio failed to file a brief in this matter.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶7} The United States Supreme Court held in Anders that if, after conscientious

examination of the record, the appellant’s counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,

then he or she should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.

Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record that

could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client with a copy

of the brief and request to withdraw; and (2) allow his client sufficient time to raise any

matters that the client chooses. Id. Once the appellant’s counsel has satisfied these

requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine

if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines that the

appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or may proceed to a decision on the

merits if state law so requires. Id.

{¶8} Attorney April Campbell, counsel for appellant, moved to withdraw on March

26, 2025, pursuant to Anders, informing this Court that she had conscientiously examined

the case, reviewed the entire record, searched all potential issues, and determined that

there were no meritorious issues for review which would support an appeal. Attorney

Campbell requested that this Court make an independent review of the record to

determine whether there are any additional issues that would support an appeal, and

certified that she provided a copy of the Appellant’s Anders Brief, along with copies of the

relevant transcripts, to the appellant.

{¶9} In addition, the Court informed the appellant in a September 11, 2024,

Judgment Entry that the Court received notice that he had been informed by his attorney

that an Anders brief had been filed on his behalf and provided notice that supplied the

appellant with a copy; and, granted the appellant sixty days from the date of the entry to

file a pro se brief in support of his appeal. The appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

{¶10} The record establishes that the appellant’s counsel has satisfied the

requirements set forth in Anders. Accordingly, we review the record in this case and

determine whether any arguably meritorious issues exist, “… keeping in mind that,

‘Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in arguable

merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because the prosecution can be

expected to present a strong argument in reply or because it is uncertain whether a

defendant will prevail on the issue on appeal. ‘An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the

facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.’ State v. Pullen, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶4 (2nd Dist.); State v. Marbury, 2003-Ohio-

3242, ¶7-8 (2nd Dist.); State v. Chessman, 2005-Ohio-2511, ¶16-17 (2nd Dist.).’ State v.

Moore, 2009-Ohio-1416, ¶4 (2nd Dist.).” State v. Reynolds, 2024-Ohio-1956, ¶10 (5th

Dist.).

ANALYSIS

First Potential Assignment of Error

{¶11} The appellant’s counsel submits as a potential assignment of error that “the

trial court erred in accepting Chandler’s guilty pleas under Crim.R. 11[.]” We disagree.

{¶12} Our review of the record confirms that the trial court fully complied with

Crim.R. 11 when it accepted the appellant’s guilty plea, engaging in a thorough colloquy

with the appellant regarding his change of plea to guilty. The trial court advised the

appellant of the constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, and informed

him regarding maximum potential penalties, including the fact that by pleading guilty he

was subject to a mandatory prison sentence and post-release control. The trial court

questioned the appellant to determine whether his plea was validly entered, and

determined it was.

{¶13} Accordingly, the appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and

intelligently given, and there was no error in the trial court’s acceptance of the appellant’s

guilty plea.

Second Potential Assignment of Error

{¶14} The appellant’s counsel also submits as a potential assignment of error that

the trial court “erred in sentencing” the appellant. We disagree. {¶15} R.C. 2953.08 governs appeals claiming a violation of felony sentencing

guidelines. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) describes this court’s standard of review:

(2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section

shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or

modification given by the sentencing court.

The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence

that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand

the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court’s

standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its

discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this

division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under

division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or division(I) of

section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

{¶16} A sentencing is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial

court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed

in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant

within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶36 (12th Dist.).

We have reviewed the record and found that the trial court fulfilled those requirements as

it imposed the sentence, so we find no error. CONCLUSION

{¶17} Based upon the foregoing, and after independently reviewing the record,

we agree with appellate counsel’s conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist

upon which to base an appeal. Hence, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under

Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Muskingum

County Court of Common Pleas.

{¶18} Costs to the appellant.

By: Baldwin, P.J.

Montgomery, J. and

Popham, J. concur.