State v. Key
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Key, 2002-Ohio-5532.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 19164 v. : T.C. CASE NO. 01 CR 2310 JESSIE L. KEY : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 11th day of October , 2002. .......... CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL H. HOLZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0031902, 507 Wilmington Avenue, Suite 1, Dayton, Ohio 45420 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant JESSIE L. KEY, #417-899, London Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140 .......... FREDERICK N. YOUNG, J. {¶1} After a two day trial, a jury found Jessie L. Key guilty of Aggravated 2 Assault, a lesser included offense of the charged offense, Felonious Assault. He was ultimately sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment. Key filed a notice of appeal, and in due course, his appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, alleging that after thoroughly examining the record and the law, he concluded that there were no meritorious issues for appeal. {¶2} On July 12, 2002, we informed Key of the fact that his counsel had filed an Anders brief and granted him sixty days from that date to file his pro se brief, if any. {¶3} No such pro se brief has been filed. {¶4} We have thoroughly examined the record of the proceedings in this case, and we agree with the assessment of appellate counsel that there are no meritorious issues for appellate review. In his brief, appellate counsel even stated: {¶5} In fact, this was the closest thing to a technically perfect trial this attorney has ever seen, and if anything the court s few evidentiary rulings favored the defendant. {¶6} The judgment appealed from is affirmed. .......... FAIN, J. and GRADY, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Carley J. Ingram Michael H. Holz Jessie L. Key Hon. Mary E. Donovan
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
