Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos.
CR2018-0515 & CR2018-0728
Plaintiff-Appellee D. MICHAEL HADDOX.
Defendant-Appellant JEREMY M. MCLENDON Micheli, Baldwin,
Mortimer McLendon & Whitacre, LLP.
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Appellant Kelly Jo Dunkle appeals the judgments entered by
the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting her of
trafficking in drugs (R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)), possession of drug
paraphernalia (R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)), and two counts of
obstructing justice (R.C. 2921.32(A)(2)) following her pleas
of guilty, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of
incarceration of five years.
OF THE CASE
In case number CR2018-0515, Appellant entered pleas of guilty
to trafficking in drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia
on December 10, 2018. Also on December 10, 2018, Appellant
entered pleas of guilty to two counts of obstructing justice
in case number CR2018-0728.
Both cases proceeded to sentencing on January 14, 2019. In
case number CR2018-0515, the court sentenced Appellant to
twenty-four months incarceration for trafficking in drugs and
a term of local incarceration of 30 days for possession of
drug paraphernalia, to be served concurrently with each
other. Appellant filed a notice of appeal (Case No.
In case number CR2018-0728, Appellant was sentenced to thirty
months incarceration on each obstructing justice conviction,
to be served consecutively with each other but concurrently
with the sentences imposed in CR2018-0515. She also filed a
notice of appeal from this judgment (Case No. CT2019-0010).
Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to
Withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388
U.S. 924, indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous.
Counsel for Appellant has raised one potential assignment of
error in each case, asking this Court to determine in each
case whether the trial court erred in the sentence imposed
upon Appellant. Appellant was given an opportunity to file a
brief raising additional assignments of error, but none was
In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if,
after a conscientious examination of the record, a
defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly
frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and
request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel
must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything
in the record which could arguably support the appeal.
Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a
copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and, (2) allow the
client sufficient time to raise any matters the client
chooses. Id. Once the defendant's counsel
satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully
examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably
meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also
determines the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant
counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal
without violating constitutional requirements, or may proceed
to a decision on the merits if state law so requires.
Counsel in this matter has followed the procedure as set
forth in Anders. We now will address the merits of
Appellant's potential Assignments of Error.