State v. Dawson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Dawson, 2006-Ohio-6819.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 21401 v. : T.C. NO. 04 CR 702 TABITHA DAWSON : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 22nd day of December , 2006. .......... JON C. MARSHALL, Atty. Reg. No. 0079409, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee PAMELA PINCHOT, Atty. Reg. No. 0071648, 7501 Paragon Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant TABITHA DAWSON, #W062811, Northeast Pre-Release Center, 2675 E. 30th Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Defendant-Appellant .......... DONOVAN, J. Defendant-appellant Tabitha Dawson, appeals from her conviction of one count Aggravated Robbery and one count of Theft by Intimidation. Dawson was sentenced to five years on count one and three years on count two, to be served concurrently. Dawson s appellate counsel has filed a brief 2 pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 19 L.Ed.2d. 493, indicating that there are no meritorious issues to be presented on appeal. By entry filed June 26, 2006, we advised Dawson that her appellate counsel had filed an Anders brief and allowed her sixty days within which to file her own pro se brief. Dawson has not filed her own pro se brief. Pursuant to Anders, supra, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree with Dawson 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 Dawson s guilty pleas. Furthermore, it is evident from the record that the trial court properly determined that Dawson s pleas were made voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charges. She was well informed of the maximum penalty which could be invoked and all the rights which were waived as a result of her pleas. We agree with Dawson s appellate counsel that no meritorious issues are present in this appeal. Judgment affirmed. .......... GRADY, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Jon C. Marshall Pamela Pinchot Tabitha Dawson Hon. Barbara P. Gorman
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.
