Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-17-2021

Case Style:


Case Number: 2019-CA-60

Judge: Michael L. Tucker


Plaintiff's Attorney: JOHN M. LINTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0097715, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County
Prosecutor’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Free National Lawyer Directory


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.


Dayton, OH - Criminal defense attorney represented Joshua Edward Webb with a appealing from the trial court’s judgment which revoked the revocation of his community control sanctions (CCS) and imposed a
prison term. .

Webb was indicted on two counts of receiving stolen property (motor vehicle),
fourth degree felonies. Webb pleaded guilty to one count and the second count was
dismissed. Webb was sentenced to CCS. The trial court imposed an alternate prison
term of 18 months.
{¶ 3} Webb’s CCS sentence imposed a number of conditions. Webb violated
several of these conditions, and a CCS revocation proceeding was initiated. On October
22, 2018, Webb admitted violating four CCS conditions. Despite this, the trial court
continued Webb’s CCS sentence, but several new conditions were added.
{¶ 4} Thereafter, Webb continued to violate his CCS conditions. On June 7, 2019,
a second CCS revocation proceeding was initiated. The revocation application asserted
that Webb had failed to report to the Clark County Adult Probation Department as ordered,
had to the use of illegal drugs while at McKinley Hall, had failed to complete substance
abuse treatment at McKinley Hall, had failed to verify substance abuse and mental health
treatment at the Rocking Horse Center, and had failed to verify his employment. A CCS
violation arraignment was conducted on June 18, 2019, at which time Webb waived a
probable cause hearing but denied the alleged violations.
{¶ 5} A hearing was conducted on August 7, 2019. After the trial court explained
the rights he was waiving, Webb admitted the CCS violations. The trial court then
revoked his CCS and imposed the 18-month prison sentence. Webb was given credit
for 336 days of jail time credit. This appeal followed.
{¶ 6} As noted, Webb’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. Webb was
notified of his right to file a brief, but none has been filed.
Anders Standard
{¶ 7} Upon the filing of an Anders brief, an appellate court has a duty to determine,
“after a full examination of the proceedings,” whether the appeal is, in fact, “wholly
frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493; Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). An issue is not frivolous based
upon a conclusion that the State has a strong responsive argument. State v. Pullen, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. A frivolous issue, instead, is one
about which, “on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that
offers a basis for reversal.” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-
Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. If we find that any issue is not wholly frivolous, we must reject the Anders
brief and appoint new counsel to represent the appellant.
Anders Analysis
{¶ 8} Webb was provided written notice of the revocation proceeding. The notice
included the claimed CCS violations. At the revocation hearing, the trial court advised
Webb of his right to a hearing and that the State would have the burden to prove the
violations by the preponderance of the evidence. The trial court also advised Webb that
he had the right to confront and cross-examine any State witnesses and to present his
own witnesses or documentary evidence. Upon being so advised, Webb admitted to the
violations and, as noted, the CCS was revoked and he was sentenced to an 18-month
prison term. Webb was granted 336 days of jail time credit. The Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction website indicates that Webb has completed the prison term
and he is not on post-release control.1
{¶ 9} Webb was either provided with or advised of the due process rights
associated with a CCS revocation proceeding. See State v. Freeman, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 27392, 2018-Ohio-866, ¶ 12, citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778,
786, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Any claim otherwise would be without
potential merit.
{¶ 10} Finally, we note that we have reviewed the entire record and this review has
not revealed any potentially meritorious appellate issues.

Outcome: Counsel is granted leave to withdraw from the case. The judgment of the Clark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case