State v. Ebbing
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Ebbing, 2006-Ohio-988.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 21227 v. : T.C. NO. 05 CR 1893 KENNETH L. EBBING : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 3rd day of March , 2006. .......... 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 KENNETH L. EBBING, #A498-201, London Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140-0069 Defendant-Appellant .......... WOLFF, J. {¶ 1} Kenneth Ebbing entered a plea of no contest to robbery, a second degree felony, and was found guilty. Ebbing was sentenced to two years in prison, which term was to run consecutively to a one-year term imposed in connection with a conviction for failure 2 to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. {¶ 2} We granted Ebbing leave to appeal late and appointed appellate counsel to prosecute the appeal. On November 16, 2005, appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in accordance with Anders v. California, (1967) 386 U.S. 738, wherein appointed appellate counsel represented to the court that he could find no arguably meritorious issues for appeal. {¶ 3} By decision and entry of December 1, 2005, we informed Ebbing that his appointed appellate counsel had filed an Anders brief and of the significance of an Anders brief, and we invited Ebbing to file pro se assignments of error within 60 days of December 1, 2005. {¶ 4} Ebbing has not filed a brief with this Court. {¶ 5} Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, we have conducted an independent review of the record and we have concluded, as did appointed appellate counsel, that there are no arguably meritorious issues for appellate review and that this appeal is wholly frivolous. {¶ 6} Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is Affirmed. ........... FAIN, J., and DONOVAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Carley J. Ingram Patrick J. Conboy Kenneth L. Ebbing 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.
