State v. Gainer
Docket 31435
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
- Court
- Ohio Court of Appeals
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Judge
- Carr
- Citation
- 2026-Ohio-1537
- Docket
- 31435
Appeal from judgment following guilty pleas and sentencing in Summit County Court of Common Pleas criminal case
Summary
The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's judgment against Dezmond Gainer. Gainer pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal to trafficking in cocaine with forfeiture specifications and possession of a fentanyl-related compound; other charges were dismissed. After sentencing to 5 to 7.5 years and forfeiture orders, Gainer obtained leave for a delayed appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist and moved to withdraw; Gainer indicated he prefers to raise an ineffective-assistance claim in post-conviction proceedings. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no meritorious direct-appeal issues, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether there are any nonfrivolous issues to raise on direct appeal from Gainer's guilty pleas and sentence
- Whether appellate counsel properly filed an Anders brief and may withdraw
- Whether the record supports a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for withdrawing the motion to suppress on direct appeal
Court's Reasoning
The court conducted an independent review of the record and found no arguable issues for direct appeal based on the plea and sentencing transcripts. Appellate counsel complied with Anders by reviewing the record, identifying a potential ineffective-assistance claim, and explaining that the record lacks support for that claim on direct appeal. Because any ineffective-assistance claim depends on evidence outside the record, it is more appropriate for post-conviction relief, and the direct appeal is frivolous.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- State v. Randles2008-Ohio-662 (9th Dist.)
- State v. Ross2024-Ohio-4531 (9th Dist.)
Parties
- Appellant
- Dezmond Gainer
- Appellee
- State of Ohio
- Attorney
- Alana Van Gundy
- Attorney
- Jamie L. Morris
- Attorney
- Elliot Kolkovich
- Judge
- Donna J. Carr
- Judge
- Hensal, J.
- Judge
- Flagg Lanzinger, J.
Key Dates
- Indictment returned
- 2023-07-06
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider post-conviction petition
If the defendant believes trial counsel was ineffective, gather evidence and file an application for post-conviction relief to develop facts outside the trial record.
- 2
Consult criminal defense counsel
Speak with an attorney experienced in post-conviction work to evaluate possible claims, deadlines, and required supporting evidence.
- 3
Comply with sentence and forfeiture orders
Until any collateral relief is obtained, ensure compliance with incarceration and forfeiture directives to avoid additional penalties.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no nonfrivolous issues for direct appeal after independently reviewing the record.
- Does this prevent raising ineffective-assistance claims?
- No. The court noted the ineffective-assistance issue lacks support in the record and suggested it is better raised in a post-conviction petition where outside evidence can be presented.
- Can counsel withdraw on appeal?
- Yes. The court found appellate counsel complied with Anders procedures and granted the motion to withdraw.
- What happens next for the defendant?
- The trial court's sentence and forfeiture orders remain in effect; the defendant may pursue post-conviction relief to raise issues not suitable for direct appeal.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
[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.