State v. Cullins

2025 Ohio 3037

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: CT2024-0137
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cullins, 2025-Ohio-3037.]

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. CT2024-0137

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. MARIBETH CULLINS, CR2024-0459

Defendant – Appellant Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry: August 25, 2025

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: JOSEPH A. PALMER, for Plaintiff-Appellee; APRIL F. CAMPBELL, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Montgomery, J.

{¶1} This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw and

Anders brief filed by Attorney April Campbell, appellate counsel for Defendant-Appellant,

Maribeth Cullins (“Appellant”). After Appellant pled guilty to telecommunications fraud,

theft, possessing criminal tools, and identity fraud, Appellant was convicted and

sentenced to an aggregate term of seventeen (17) months imprisonment. Appellate

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} The indictments stemmed from the victim reporting fraud in his checking

account due to four fraudulent transactions. Appellant created fraudulent checks with the

victim’s banking information. The checks were given to another individual, Gheen, who

used them to pay rent. Text messages revealed a conversation between Appellant and

Gheen in which Appellant stated the check “looks good A-F”. Plea Tr., p. 13. Appellant

admitted to supplying Gheen with the victim’s bank account and routing information.

Appellant later admitted to still being in possession of check-making equipment. Plea Tr.,

p. 14.

{¶3} The Court imposed seventeen-month terms for counts one and two (fourth-

degree felony telecommunications fraud and fourth-degree felony identity fraud) and

eleven-month terms for counts three and four (fifth-degree felony theft and fifth-degree

felony possessing criminal tools) and determined the sentences should run concurrently,

for a total of seventeen (17) months imprisonment.

{¶4} Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and sets forth the following “potential” assignments of error:

“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING CULLINS’ GUILTY PLEAS UNDER CRIM. R. 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING HER.”

{¶5} The Motion to Withdraw and Anders Brief, states that counsel has reviewed

the entire record, researched potential issues, and determined that there were no

meritorious issues for review which would support an appeal. Attorney Campbell

requests that this Court make an independent review of the record to determine whether

there are any additional issues that would support an appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW - Anders v. California

{¶6} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious

examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,

then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel must accompany his request with a brief

identifying anything in the record that could arguably support his client's appeal. Id.

Counsel must also: (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.

{¶7} Once the defendant's counsel satisfies 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} By Judgment Entry filed April 24, 2025, this Court indicated that it had

received notice pursuant to Anders that Attorney Campbell provided Appellant a copy of

the Anders appeal brief. In that same Judgment Entry, this Court informed Appellant she

may file a pro se brief in support of the appeal within 60 days from the date of the Entry.

Neither the State of Ohio nor Appellant has filed any brief in Response to counsel’s

Anders brief.

{¶9} The record establishes that Appellant’s counsel satisfied Anders

requirements. Accordingly, we proceed to review the potential assignment of error to

determine if 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 is not lacking in that regard merely because the

prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply. 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.

{¶10} State v. Pullen, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.); State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-

1416, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.); State v. Grant, 2023-Ohio-4614, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.); State v. Reynolds,

2024-Ohio-1956, ¶ 10 (5th Dist.).

POTENTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING CULLINS’ GUILTY PLEAS UNDER CRIM. R. 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING HER.

{¶11} Here, after independently reviewing the entire record, we conclude that

Appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. The written plea

form was signed by all parties. During the change of plea hearing, the prosecution fully

outlined the charges to which the Appellant would plead guilty to, and Appellant

understood the charges. The Court fully complied with the constitutional requirements of

Crim. R. 11 and substantially complied, or more than substantially complied, with the non-

constitutional requirements. The Court informed Appellant regarding the maximum

potential penalties and Appellant indicated that she understood those penalties and

understood the rights she was giving up in exchange for her guilty plea. Plea Tr., p. 12.

Appellant was represented by counsel, indicated she was satisfied with her

representation, and further understood that the court does not have to follow the joint

sentence recommendation. Plea Tr., pp. 8-10. Thus, there is no non-frivolous issue for

appeal regarding Appellant’s guilty plea. {¶12} Similarly, there is no non-frivolous issue for appeal concerning the

Appellant’s sentence. The Court imposed a sentence well within the statutory parameters

for each offense and determined the terms should run concurrently. The sentencing entry

states it considered the record, all statements, any victim impact statement, and the plea

recommendation. It further stated it considered the principles and purposes of sentencing

as set forth in R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in

R.C. 2929.12. The sentencing hearing transcript supports the findings stated in the Entry.

Given that the court followed Ohio sentencing law and imposed a sentence supported by

the evidence and statutory considerations, there are no non-frivolous issues to present

resulting from sentencing. CONCLUSION

{¶13} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel’s

conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. We

therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders. Attorney Campbell’s motion

to withdraw as counsel for Appellant is hereby granted. The judgment of the Muskingum

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Costs to Appellant.

By: Montgomery, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Gormley, J. concur.