State v. Goode
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Goode, 2003-Ohio-2960.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 19274 v. : T.C. NO. 01 CR 2005 CORWIN M. GOODE : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 6th day of June , 2003. .......... KIRSTEN A. BRANDT, Atty. Reg. No. 0070162, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee JAY A. ADAMS, Atty. Reg. No. 0072135, 2310 Far Hills Ave., Suite 5, Dayton, Ohio 45419 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant CORWIN M. GOODE, #A428-978, Noble Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 278, Caldwell, Ohio 43724-0278 Defendant-Appellant .......... WOLFF, J. {¶1} On March 20, 2002, the trial court sentenced Corwin Michael Goode to a 2 sentence of six months incarceration, the minimum sentence, upon his plea of guilty to possession of crack cocaine, a fifth degree felony. This sentence was imposed in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2001 CR 2005. This appeal is confined to the judgment entered in Case No. 2001 CR 2005 on March 21, 2002. {¶2} At the same time, the trial court sentenced Goode to consecutive sentences totaling seven years in Common Pleas Court Case No. 2001 CR 1042. The judgment in that case is also the subject of a separate appeal in Case No. CA 19273. The six-month sentence imposed in Case No. 2001 CR 2005 was made concurrent with the seven-year aggregate sentence imposed in Case No. 2001 CR 1042. {¶3} In Case No. 2001 CR 2005, which is the subject of this appeal, Goode entered a plea of guilty to the charge of fifth degree possession of crack cocaine after his motion to suppress was overruled by the trial court. A notice of appeal was filed from the judgment entered in this case and counsel was appointed to represent the appellant. {¶4} On March 17, 2003, appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, wherein he represented that after review of the record in this case, he could find no potentially meritorious appellate issues to advance on appeal. On March 19, 2003, we filed a decision and entry, a copy of which was served upon Goode, wherein we indicated that appointed appellate counsel had filed an Anders brief and the significance of an Anders brief. In that decision and entry, we invited the defendant to file a pro se brief within sixty days assigning any errors for review. We have had no response to this decision and entry. {¶5} Pursuant to our obligation under Anders to independently review the 3 record in this case, we have made a thorough examination of the record and conclude, as did appointed appellate counsel, that in this case, stemming from Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Case No. 2001 CR 2005, there are no potentially meritorious appellate issues to advance. Accordingly, the judgment in this case will be affirmed. .......... FAIN, P.J. and YOUNG, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Kirsten A. Brandt Jay A. Adams Corwin M. Goode Hon. Michael T. Hall
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.
