State v. Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Brown, 2006-Ohio-465.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 21102 v. : T.C. NO. 2004 CR 1511 KENNETH A. BROWN : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 3rd day of February , 2006. .......... CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee BRENT E. RAMBO, Atty. Reg. No. 0076969, 318 W. Fourth Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant KENNETH A. BROWN, #A496-874, Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center, P. O. Box 17399, Dayton, Ohio 45417 Defendant-Appellant .......... DONOVAN, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Kenneth Brown, appeals from his no contest plea and sentence for one count of possession of cocaine, a felony of the fourth degree. Brown was sentenced to a prison term of seventeen months. Brown s appellate counsel 2 has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d. 493, indicating that there are no meritorious issues to be presented on appeal. By entry filed October 17, 2005, we advised Brown that his appellate counsel had filed an Anders brief and allowed him sixty days within which to file his own pro se brief. Brown has not filed his own pro se brief. {¶ 1} Pursuant to Anders, supra, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree with Brown s appellate counsel that there are no meritorious issues presented on appeal. We reviewed the entire record and found that the trial court complied with the requirements of Crim. R. 11 (C) in accepting Brown s no contest plea and no sentencing-related errors occurred. {¶ 2} After reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, we feel that it is evident that the trial court properly determined that Brown s plea was made voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charges. He was informed of the maximum penalty which could be invoked and of all the rights which were waived as a result of his plea. {¶ 3} We agree with Brown s appellate counsel that no meritorious issues are present in this appeal. Judgment affirmed. ........... GRADY, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: 3 Carley J. Ingram Brent E. Rambo Kenneth A. Brown Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman
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.
