State v. Richardson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Richardson, 2003-Ohio-6677.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 19866 v. : T.C. CASE NO. 2002 CR 2982 RONALD RICHARDSON : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 12th day of December , 2003. .......... CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICK J. CONBOY II, Atty. Reg. No. 0070073, 5613 Brandt Pike, Huber Heights, Ohio 45424 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant RONALD RICHARDSON, #446-185, Montgomery Education & Pre-Release Ctr., 1901 South Gettysburg Ave., P. O. Box 17399, Dayton, Ohio 45417 Defendant-Appellant .......... FREDERICK N. YOUNG, J. {¶1} Ronald Richardson entered a plea of guilty to possession of crack cocaine and tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to a term of twelve months on the 2 possession charge and three years on the tampering charge, to be served concurrently. Richardson filed a notice of appeal and, in due course, his appointed appellate counsel filed an extensive Anders brief, which thoroughly examined the record and the law and concluded that there were no meritorious issues for appeal. {¶2} On September 3, 2003, we informed Richardson of the fact that his counsel had filed an Anders brief and granted him sixty days from September 3, 2003, 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. {¶5} The judgment appealed from will be affirmed. .......... FAIN, P.J. and BROGAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Carley J. Ingram Patrick J. Conboy II Ronald Richardson 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.