State v. Dunn, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2004)
This text of 2004 Ohio 3137 (State v. Dunn, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} On March 17, 2004, Dunn's appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967),
{¶ 3} On April 20, 2004, Dunn filed a motion in which he expressed his desire to proceed pro se and sought an extension of at least thirty days, or until May 20, 2004, to file a brief. No such extension was required, however, because our prior entry had granted Dunn until May 21, 2004, to file his brief.
{¶ 4} As of June 9, 2004, Dunn had not filed a pro se brief, and the cause was submitted for our review on that date. Having now fulfilled our obligation to examine the record of the proceedings in this case, we agree with the assessment of appellate counsel that there are no potentially meritorious issues for appellate review. The record reflects that Dunn knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pled guilty to the foregoing charges as part of a plea agreement. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Wolff, J., and Young, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2004 Ohio 3137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dunn-unpublished-decision-6-18-2004-ohioctapp-2004.