State v. VanHoose

2014 Ohio 3944

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 12, 2014
• Docket: 2013-CA-23
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. VanHoose, 2014-Ohio-3944.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 2013-CA-23 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 13-CR-25 v. : : SHEA M. VanHOOSE : (Criminal Appeal from : (Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : :

........... OPINION Rendered on the 12th day of September , 2014. ...........

KEVIN S. TALEBI, Champaign County Prosecutor’s Office, 200 North Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

MICHAEL R. PENTECOST, Atty. Reg. #0036803, 117 South Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

SHEA M. VanHOOSE, 225 Logan Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Defendant-Appellant, pro se

.............

HALL, J.

{¶ 1} Shea M. VanHoose appeals from his conviction and sentence following a negotiated guilty plea to one count of trafficking in marijuana, a fifth-degree felony.

{¶ 2} VanHoose’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the absence of any

non-frivolous issues for appellate review and requesting permission to withdraw. We notified

VanHoose of counsel’s filing and gave him an opportunity to submit a pro se brief. No such brief

has been filed.

{¶ 3} In his Anders filing, counsel does identify a potential assignment of error

concerning the propriety of VanHoose’s ten-month prison sentence. Counsel concludes, however,

that a challenge to the sentence would be frivolous because it was less than the statutory

maximum and was supported by the record.

{¶ 4} Upon review, we agree that a challenge to VanHoose’s sentence would be

frivolous. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s web site reflects that

VanHoose is no longer incarcerated, and a county “JusticeWeb” site reflects that he is no longer

even on post-release supervision. See State v. Bair, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2011-CA-8,

2011-Ohio-6798, ¶ 4 (taking judicial notice that a defendant’s name did not appear on the ODRC

web site of incarcerated individuals). Therefore, any challenge to his sentence would be moot. Id.

at ¶ 6.

{¶ 5} Finally, pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, we independently have

examined the record, including plea and sentencing hearing transcripts, and have found no

non-frivolous issues for appellate review. The record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and

voluntary guilty plea in compliance with Crim.R. 11. In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to

dismissal of a second count and deleted a specification that VanHoose’s offense was committed

within the vicinity of a juvenile, reducing the offense from a fourth-degree to a fifth-degree 3

felony.

{¶ 6} Appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from further representation is sustained,

and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

FROELICH, P.J., and FAIN, J., concur.

Copies mailed to:

Kevin S. Talebi Michael R. Pentecost Shea VanHoose Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio