State v. Parks

2025 Ohio 1954

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Parks, 2025-Ohio-1954.]

COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Andrew J. King, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. : Hon. David M. Gormley, J. -vs- : : MUREL D. PARKS, JR. : Case Nos. 2025 CA 0002 : 2025 CA 0003 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 25 CR 0028 and 25CR 0029

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 30, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

CHRISHANA L. CARROLL CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY 500 North 3rd Street 9200 Montgomery Road Suite A Suite 8A Coshocton, OH 43812 Cincinnati, OH 45242 King, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Murel Parks, appeals his December 18, 2024

convictions from the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio. Appellee is the

State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On February 20, 2024, in case number 24CR0028, the Coshocton County

Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Parks with one count of aggravated trafficking

in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree. The charge also

included a forfeiture specification for a firearm and U.S currency. The charge involved

Parks trafficking in methamphetamine.

{¶ 3} Also on February 20, 2024, in case number 24CR0029, the Coshocton

County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Parks with one count of aggravated

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the second degree. The

charge included a forfeiture specification for U.S. currency. This charge also involved

{¶ 4} On December 16, 2024, following plea negotiations with the State, Parks

agreed to plead guilty as charged in both cases. In exchange for his pleas, the State

agreed to take no position on sentencing. Following a thorough Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy,

the trial court accepted Parks' pleas and convicted him. In case number 24CR0028 the

trial court imposed a two-year sentence. In case number 24CR0029, the trial court

imposed an indefinite sentence of seven to ten and a half years. The court ordered Parks

to serve the sentences consecutive to each other and consecutive to a prison sentence Parks was serving on a Muskingum County conviction at the time of his pleas in this

matter.

{¶ 5} Parks filed an appeal in each case and was appointed counsel. Pursuant to

Loc. App.R.12, this court consolidated the cases. Parks' attorney filed an Anders brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In Anders, the United States Supreme

Court held that if, after a conscientious examination of the record, the defendant's counsel

concludes that the case is wholly frivolous, then counsel 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 defendant's appeal.

Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish the defendant with a copy of the brief and request to

withdraw; and (2) allow the defendant sufficient time to raise any matters that the

defendant 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 that the appeal is 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.

{¶ 6} On February 3, 2025, Parks' counsel filed a motion to withdraw and

indicated he sent Parks a copy of the Anders brief. By judgment entry filed Febuary 6,

2025, this court noted counsel had filed an Anders brief and indicated to the court that he

had served Parks with the brief. Accordingly, this court notified Parks via certified U.S.

Mail that he "may file a pro se brief in support of the appeal within 60 days from the date

of this entry." Parks did not do so. {¶ 7} The matter is now before this court for consideration of counsel's Anders

brief. Counsel urges this court to review the following:

I

{¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED CONSECUTIVE

SENTENCES."

{¶ 9} Counsel asks this court to determine if there is any merit to an argument

that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We find no error.

{¶ 10} This court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review set forth

in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002 ¶ 22; State v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-

4049, ¶ 31 (5th Dist.). Subsection (G)(2) sets forth this court's standard of review as

follows:

(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

(C)(4) of section 2929.14, 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.

{¶ 11} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs consecutive sentences. That section states:

(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions

of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the

prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive

service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to

punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to

the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds

any of the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses

while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a

sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18

of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior

offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of

one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual

that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part

of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness

of the offender's conduct.

(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from

future crime by the offender.

{¶ 12} "R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court's

consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court's findings must be upheld unless those

findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record." State v. Gwynne, 2023-

Ohio-3851, ¶ 5. "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which

is more than a mere 'preponderance of the evidence,' but not to the extent of such

certainty as is required 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and which will

produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to

be established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, (1954), paragraph three of the

syllabus.

{¶ 13} When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must state the required

findings at the sentencing hearing. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. Because a

court speaks through its journal, the court should also incorporate its statutory findings

into the sentencing entry. Id. However, a word-for-word recitation of the language of the

statute is not required. Id. As long as the reviewing court can discern the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine the record contains evidence to

support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld. Id.

{¶ 14} We first note Parks did not object during the sentencing hearing to the

imposition of consecutive sentences, thereby forfeiting all but plain error. State v. Wilson,

2013-Ohio-1520 (10th Dist.) ¶ 8. An error not raised in the trial court must be plain error

for an appellate court to reverse. State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) at paragraph

one of the syllabus; Crim.R. 52(B). In order to prevail under a plain error analysis,

appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the proceeding clearly

would have been different but for the error. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. Notice of

plain error "is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and

only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶ 15} Upon review of the record, we find the trial court engaged in the correct

analysis. It found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish

Parks, that he had an extensive prior record and had been to prison on several occasions,

and that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his

conduct. Transcript of sentencing 26-29.

{¶ 16} "Anders equated a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in

arguable merit .... 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 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 17} Upon our independent review of the record, we agree with appellate

counsel's conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. Accordingly, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant

counsel's request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

{¶ 18} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio,

is hereby affirmed.

By: King, P.J.

Popham, J. and

Gormley, J. concur.