State v. Gainer

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 31435
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Gainer, 2026-Ohio-1537.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 31435

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DEZMOND GAINER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR 2023-06-2153(B)

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: April 29, 2026

CARR, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Appellant, Dezmond Gainer, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} On July 6, 2023, the Summit County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging

Gainer with one count of trafficking in cocaine with a litany of attendant specifications, one count

of possession of cocaine with a major drug offender specification, one count of trafficking in a

fentanyl-related compound with numerous specifications, and one count of possession of a

fentanyl-related compound. Gainer pleaded not guilty to the charges at arraignment.

{¶3} Gainer subsequently filed a motion to suppress, and the State filed a brief in

opposition. After several continuances, Gainer withdrew his motion to suppress and entered into

a plea agreement with the State. Gainer pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine with one forfeiture

specification pertaining to money in a drug case, and six forfeiture specifications pertaining to 2

firearms in a drug case. Gainer also pleaded guilty to possession of a fentanyl-related compound.

The remaining charges and specifications were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. The

trial court sentenced Gainer to a prison term of 5 to 7 and a half years. The trial court also issued

forfeiture orders pertaining to the drug money and the six firearms.

{¶4} Several months after the trial court issued its sentencing entry, Gainer filed a motion

for a delayed appeal, which this Court granted.

II.

{¶5} Appellate counsel for Gainer has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), wherein she states that she has thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter and

concluded that there are no viable issues to raise on direct appeal. Appellate counsel has moved

to withdraw. Gainer was served with a copy of the Anders brief and he subsequently filed a

response.

{¶6} In the Anders brief, appellate counsel emphasized that she performed a scrupulous

review of the record, which included a review of the transcripts from the plea hearing and the

sentencing hearing, and determined that there were no viable issues to be raised in the instant

appeal. After conferring with Gainer, appellate counsel has pointed to one potential issue

regarding the effectiveness of trial counsel in moving to withdraw the motion to suppress. Notably,

however, appellate counsel notes that there is no basis in the record to support that claim on direct

appeal and that the issue is more suitable for post-conviction relief.

{¶7} Gainer filed a response to the Anders brief. While Gainer suggested that trial

counsel was ineffective in withdrawing the motion to suppress, Gainer expressed his preference to

address that issue by filing a petition for post-conviction relief. 3

{¶8} A review of the record confirms appellate counsel’s observation that there was no

objection to the withdrawal of the motion to suppress, nor was there any evidence on the face of

the record that would call the withdrawal of that motion into question. Accordingly, after this

Court’s thorough and independent examination of the record, we agree that there are no non-

frivolous issues that can be raised on direct appeal. See State v. Randles, 2008-Ohio-662, ¶ 6 (9th

Dist.); State v. Ross, 2024-Ohio-4531, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). Accordingly, appellate counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted.

III.

{¶9} Having reviewed the relevant portions of the record and determined that no

appealable issues exist, this Court concludes that Gainer’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous

under Anders. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. The judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 4

Costs taxed to Appellant.

DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ALANA VAN GUNDY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JAMIE L. MORRIS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.