[Cite as State v. Allen, 2019-Ohio-1664.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MIAMI COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

KATIE M. ALLEN 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-21 

Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-266 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 3rd day of May, 2019. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

JANNA L. PARKER, Atty. Reg. No. 0075261, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Miami 

County Prosecutor’s Office, 201 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

BRIAN A. MUENCHENBACH, Atty. Reg. No. 0088722, 309 North Barron Street, Eaton, 

Ohio 45320 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

DONOVAN, J. 

 
-2- 

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on Katie M. Allen’s September 11, 2018 

notice of appeal. Allen’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no potentially 

meritorious issues to present on appeal. We notified Allen of counsel’s filing of an 

Anders brief and gave her an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but she has not done so. 

{¶ 2} Allen appeals her conviction, following her guilty pleas, of one count of 

aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(1)(d) (Count One), 

a felony of the second degree, and one count of trafficking in heroin, in violation of R.C. 

2925.05(A)(2)/(C)(6)(a) (Count Two), a felony of the fifth degree. 

{¶ 3} On June 26, 2018, the trial court held a hearing at which the prosecutor 

indicated that Allen consented to being prosecuted pursuant to a proposed bill of 

information and to waiving prosecution by indictment. The bill of information charged 

Allen with aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine (with forfeiture specifications) and 

with trafficking in heroin, as described above. The prosecutor further advised the court 

that, in exchange for Allen’s guilty plea, the State dismissed a second fifth-degree felony 

trafficking charge and agreed to forego prosecution of additional trafficking charges which 

were under investigation. The State also agreed “not to enhance the felony two to a 

felony one, with a school zone [sic].” Finally, the prosecutor indicated that Allen had 

agreed to the forfeitures. Allen then confirmed her understanding of the plea agreement 

as recited by the prosecutor, and she acknowledged that there was no agreement 

regarding her sentence. 

{¶ 4} The court advised Allen of her right to a grand jury proceeding and explained 
-3- 

the nature of a bill of information, and Allen signed a waiver of indictment form. The court 

then placed Allen under oath. In response to questions from the court, Allen advised the 

court that she was born in 1993, that she possessed a GED, and that she could read and 

write the English language. She stated that she was not under the influence of any drugs 

or alcohol, and that she had not been threatened or promised anything to induce her 

pleas. She acknowledged having adequate time to discuss her pleas with her lawyer, 

and that counsel answered all of her questions after going over all the charges and 

specifications with her. Allen stated that she was satisfied with her counsel’s advice. 

She indicated to the court that she understood the meaning and the nature of the charges 

and specifications. 

{¶ 5} The court addressed Counts One and Two, concurrent and consecutive 

sentencing, and the maximum sentences for each count. The court advised Allen that 

the sentence for Count One was mandatory, and that it carried a mandatory fine. The 

court advised Allen regarding post-release control. The court next advised Allen of all of 

her constitutional rights prior to accepting her pleas, and Allen acknowledged her 

understanding thereof. She acknowledged her signature on the plea forms, and she 

indicated that she did not have any questions for counsel or the court. The court found 

that Allen was “making a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to tender pleas of 

guilty to Count One, including the two forfeiture specifications and to Count Two in the bill 

of information.” The court further found that Allen had been informed of all of her 

constitutional rights, and that she understood the nature of the charges, the effects of 

pleas of guilty, and the possible penalties which could be imposed. The court ordered a 

presentence investigation report. 
-4- 

{¶ 6} Allen was sentenced on August 13, 2018. Allen was sentenced to five years 

in prison on Count One and to one year on Court Two, to be served concurrently. 

Pursuant to forfeiture specifications on Count One, a 1998 Ford Taurus and $555 were 

forfeited to the State. The court waived the mandatory fine due to Allen’s indigency. 

{¶ 7} Allen’s appellate counsel asserts that he “has conducted an examination of 

the record and finds no merit to any claim of error” sufficient to overturn Allen’s conviction. 

{¶ 8} This court has previously discussed Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493, as follows: 

 Pursuant to Anders, we must determine, “after a full examination of 

all the proceedings,” whether the appeal is “wholly frivolous.” [Anders] at 

744; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). 

An issue is not frivolous merely because the prosecution can be expected 

to present a strong argument in reply. State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery 

No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Rather, a frivolous appeal is one that 

presents issues lacking arguable merit, which means that, “on the facts and 

law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis 

for reversal.” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio3242, ¶ 8, citing Pullen at ¶ 4. If we find that any issue * * * is not wholly 

frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the 

defendant. Id. at ¶ 7. 

State v. Ferguson, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-71, 2019-Ohio-1143, ¶ 3. 

{¶ 9} Counsel for Allen asserts one potential assignment of error on appeal: 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT’S 
-5- 

GUILTY PLEA ON THE BASIS THAT HER ADMISSIONS WHERE SUCH 

[sic] AN ADMISSION WAS NOT MADE KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, 

INTELLIGENTLY AND THEREBY VIOLATED HER RIGHTS AFFORDED 

HER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE 

STATE OF OHIO. 

{¶ 10} Appellate counsel asserts that Allen was not placed under oath at her plea 

hearing and that the trial court “failed to ask Ms. Allen if she was satisfied with the 

representation and legal services rendered by counsel.” Counsel also asserts that the 

trial court “never specifically stated the appropriate code section under the Ohio Revised 

Code” under which these charges were filed. 

{¶ 11} We have reviewed the entire record, including the plea and sentencing 

transcripts and the presentence investigation report. This review has not revealed any 

potentially meritorious appellate issues. Contrary to Allen’s assertions, she was placed 

under oath after signing the waiver of indictment. Further, the court asked Allen if she 

was satisfied with her counsel’s representation, and she responded affirmatively. Allen 

further advised the court that she understood the nature and meaning of the charges 

against her, and the court so found. Allen’s bill of information, which she indicated she 

understood, included the relevant sections of the Revised Code for each offense, and the 

trial court’s failure to recite those sections at the plea hearing does not present a 

meritorious issue for appeal. 

{¶ 12} We have reviewed the entire record and conducted our independent 

review, pursuant to Penson, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300. We agree with 
-6- 

appellate counsel that there are no non-frivolous issues for review. Accordingly, the trial 

court's judgment will be affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

HALL, J. and TUCKER, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Janna L. Parker 

Brian A. Muenchenbach 

Katie M. Allen 

Hon. Stacy M. Wall