State v. Fraszewski
This text of 2014 Ohio 4397 (State v. Fraszewski) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Fraszewski, 2014-Ohio-4397.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-13-1220
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201301726
v.
Gary Fraszewski DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 3, 2014
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark T. Herr, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Neil S. McElroy, for appellant.
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Gary Fraszewski, appeals from the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas judgment imposing the maximum sentence for one count of aggravated
arson. Because we conclude the trial court’s sentence is not contrary to law, we affirm. {¶ 2} On May 10, 2013, appellant was indicted on four counts of aggravated
arson, felonies of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(1). Appellant pled not
guilty to the charges.
{¶ 3} On August 23, 2013, appellant entered a no contest plea to one count of
aggravated arson. A nolle prosequi was entered as to the three other counts of aggravated
arson.
{¶ 4} On September 23, 2013, a sentencing hearing was held and appellant was
sentenced to 11 years in prison, the maximum sentence. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 5} On March 24, 2014, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a request to
withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967). Counsel asserted that after thoroughly reviewing the transcript of proceedings in
the trial court and the applicable case law, no meritorious assignments of error could be
presented. Counsel did submit one potential assignment of error:
The trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Mr.
Fraszewski to an 11-year, statutory-maximum sentence.
{¶ 6} The state also filed a response to the Anders brief, concurring with the
conclusion of appellant’s counsel that there was no arguable basis for a valid assignment
of error and urging this court to permit counsel to withdraw.
{¶ 7} The procedure to be followed by appointed counsel who desires to withdraw
for want of a meritorious, appealable issue is set forth in Anders, as well as State v.
Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93, 385 N.E.2d 323 (8th Dist.1978). In Anders, the United
2. States Supreme Court found if counsel, after a conscientious examination of the case,
determines it to be wholly frivolous, counsel should so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw. Anders at 744. This request must be accompanied by a brief
identifying anything in the record which could arguably support the appeal. Id. In
addition, counsel must furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw
and allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters the client so chooses. Id. Once
these requirements have been fulfilled, the appellate court must conduct a full
examination of the proceedings held below to decide if the appeal is indeed frivolous. Id.
If the appellate court determines the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request to
withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or it may
proceed to a decision on the merits if required by state law. Id.
{¶ 8} Here, appellant’s counsel has satisfied the requirements set forth in Anders.
We observe appellant has not filed a pro se brief or otherwise responded to counsel’s
request to withdraw. Accordingly, we shall proceed with an examination of the potential
assignment of error set forth by appellant’s counsel as well as the entire record below to
determine if this appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, wholly frivolous.
{¶ 9} Appellant’s counsel submits review of the imposition of a statutory
maximum sentence is delineated in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912,
896 N.E.2d 124. Counsel notes the reviewing court must first determine if the sentence is
contrary to law, then the reviewing court determines whether the trial court abused its
discretion.
3. {¶ 10} The two-step approach set forth in Kalish no longer applies to appellate
review of felony sentences. State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-
Ohio-425, ¶ 10. We now review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth
in R.C. 2953.08. Id. at ¶ 11. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase,
reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and
convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence
is otherwise contrary to law. Id. In determining whether a sentence is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law, the approach in Kalish can provide guidance. Id. at ¶ 15.
Significantly, Kalish determined that a sentence was not clearly and
convincingly contrary to law in a scenario in which it found that the trial
court had considered the R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles of
sentencing, had considered the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism
factors, had properly applied post release control, and had imposed a
sentence within the statutory range. Id.
{¶ 11} Here, the record reveals that none of the statutory provisions specified
under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is relevant. See Tammerine at ¶ 19-21. The record further
reveals, and we find, appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. The 11-year prison
sentence imposed upon appellant is within the permissible statutory sentencing range for
a first degree felony. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(1). In addition, the trial court properly
considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, as stated in R.C. 2929.11, as well
4. as the factors in R.C. 2929.12, the most significant of which were the impact on the
victims and the seriousness of appellant’s conduct. At the sentencing hearing, the trial
court found anything less than the maximum sentence would demean appellant’s actions
of setting fire to a house with a family of four people, including two children, asleep
inside. Since we conclude the trial court’s sentence is not contrary to law, the proposed
assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 12} Next, we have an obligation to fully examine the record in this case to
determine whether an appeal would be frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493. Our review of the record, including the transcripts of appellant’s
arraignment, plea and sentencing, does not disclose any errors by the trial court which
would justify a reversal of the judgment. We therefore find this appeal to be wholly
frivolous, and counsel’s request to withdraw is found well-taken and is granted.
{¶ 13} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is hereby
affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. The
clerk is ordered to serve all parties with notice of this decision.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
5. State v. Fraszewski C.A. No. L-13-1220
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ohio 4397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fraszewski-ohioctapp-2014.