State v. Hammond

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 6, 2026
• Docket: 25CA000031
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hammond, 2026-Ohio-1258.]

IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 25CA000031

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 25-CR-14 CLAY HAMMOND

Defendant - Appellant Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry: April 6, 2026

BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; David M. Gormley, Judges

APPEARANCES: Lindsey Angler, Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Todd W. Barstow, for Defendant-Appellant.

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Clay A. Hammond appeals the judgment entered by

the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his plea of guilty to

unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a felony of the fourth degree (R.C. 2907.04(A)),

and sentencing him to a period of community control of five years. Plaintiff-appellee is

the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} From the dates of October 7, 2024, through October 9, 2024, Appellant,

who was twenty-nine years old, engaged in sexual conduct with the victim, who was fifteen years old. Appellant met the victim while both worked at the McDonald’s

restaurant in Cambridge, Ohio.

{¶3} Appellant was indicted by the Guernsey County Grand Jury with one count

of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, including an allegation Appellant was more than

ten years older than the victim at the time of the offense, which made the offense a felony

of the third degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the State agreed to strike

the allegation Appellant was more than ten years older than the victim, making the

offense a felony of the fourth degree, in exchange for which Appellant would enter a plea

of guilty to the amended charge. The parties jointly recommended a sentence of five years

of community control, including sex offender counseling through an accredited agency, a

no contact order with the named victim, and a requirement Appellant register as a Tier II

sex offender. The trial court convicted Appellant upon his plea and sentenced Appellant

to five years of community control, in accordance with the joint recommendation of the

parties. As a condition of community control, the trial court prohibited Appellant from

using marijuana, despite the fact Appellant had a medical marijuana card. It is from the

August 1, 2025, judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal.

{¶4} Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating the within appeal is

wholly frivolous. 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 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 which

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

of the brief and request to withdraw, and (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters the client chooses. Id. 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 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.

{¶5} We find counsel has complied with Anders. Appellant has not filed a pro se

brief, and the State has not filed a response brief. Counsel sets forth one assignment of

error which could arguably support the appeal:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING HAMMOND’S

GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL RULE 11 AND ERRED IN

SENTENCING HAMMOND.

{¶6} Counsel concedes the trial court engaged in a complete plea colloquy as

required by Crim. R. 11. Upon review of the transcript of the plea hearing, we find no error

in the trial court's acceptance of Appellant's guilty plea.

{¶7} Appellant was sentenced to a period of five years of community control in

accordance with the jointly recommended sentence. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides, “A

sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the

sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the

prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” The sentence in this case

was authorized by law, jointly recommended by Appellant and the State, and was imposed

by a sentencing judge, and therefore is not subject to this Court’s review on appeal. {¶8} Although Appellant did not object to the trial court’s prohibition on use of

his medical marijuana card as a condition of community control, we find the trial court

did not err in imposing the condition. In considering whether a restriction on the use of

medical marijuana as a condition of community control is overbroad, this Court has

applied the test set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St. 3d 177,

180: “whether the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2)

has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates to

conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the

statutory ends of probation." See State v. Lynn, 2023-Ohio-4429 (5th Dist.). In the

instant case, the trial court found drug use played a role in Appellant’s failure to finish

high school, and Appellant smoked marijuana with the victim. The trial court specifically

referenced this Court’s opinion in Lynn, finding marijuana played a role in Appellant’s

criminal conduct with the victim in the instant case. However, subsequent to the trial

court’s decision, the Ohio Supreme Court held where a condition of community control is

expressly authorized by statute, the Talty factors should not be applied, and the sentence

should be reviewed solely for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ballish, 2026-Ohio-503, ¶¶

24, 28. R.C. 2929.17(H) specifically allows the trial court in this case to impose “[a] term

of drug and alcohol use monitoring, including random drug testing.” We find the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a prohibition on Appellant’s use of medical

marijuana as a condition of community control, as the condition is expressly allowed by

statute.

{¶9} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with counsel's

conclusion 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 Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas.

{¶10} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

{¶11} Costs to Appellant.

By: Hoffman, J.

King, J. and

Gormley, J. concur.