[Cite as State v. Dunkle,
2025-Ohio-2820.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:
: Hon. Andrew J. King, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J.
: Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J.
-vs- :
:
CHARLES DUNKLE, : Case No. CT2025-0010
:
Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Criminal
Division, Case No. CR2024-0660
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 8, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RON WELCH CHRIS BRIGDON
Muskingum County Prosecuting 8138 Somerset Road
Attorney's Office Thornville, OH 43076
27 N. Fifth St., P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, OH 43702
Montgomery, J.
{¶1} This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw and
Anders brief filed by Attorney Chris Brigdon, appellate counsel for Defendant-Appellant,
Charles Dunkle (“Appellant”). Appellant pled guilty to attempted tampering with evidence,
a felony of the fourth degree under Ohio Revised Code 2923.02. Appellant was convicted
and sentenced to 17 months in prison, with credit for 117 days served, and was also
ordered to pay court costs. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons set forth below, we allow Attorney
Brigdon to withdraw and find there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
BACKGROUND FACTS
{¶2} On December 5, 2024, Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter “Appellant”),
Charles E. Dunkle, appeared before the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas,
Criminal Division, Judge Cottrill, for a Change of Plea Hearing. Appellant withdrew his
previously entered plea of “not guilty” and entered a plea of guilty to Count 4, attempted
tampering with evidence, a felony of the fourth degree. The plea was entered with no
jointly recommended sentence, with both the State of Ohio and Appellant’s counsel
reserving the right to argue an appropriate sentence at the sentencing hearing.
{¶3} During the plea hearing, the court informed Appellant that a felony of the
fourth degree carried a maximum prison term of 18 months and a fine of up to $5,000,
with the possibility of up to two years of optional post-release control. Plea Tr., pp. 3, 5.
Prior to the change of plea hearing, Appellant signed a written plea form and a waiver of
rights and notification. At the plea hearing, the court conducted a thorough and proper
Crim. R. 11 colloquy. The court also went over the previously executed forms. Appellant
and his counsel confirmed Appellant understood the charge against him, the maximum
penalties involved – including post-release control. Appellant’s trial counsel, Zachary
Tabler, affirmed that Appellant’s plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Plea Tr. pp. 4-5.
{¶4} The factual basis for the charges and plea involved an incident on
September 23, 2024, in Muskingum County, where the Appellant, a passenger in a green
pickup truck involved in a collision, attempted to remove the license plate from the vehicle
to avoid identification after it struck a van and dragged the victim. The trial court accepted
the Appellant’s guilty plea, ordered a presentence investigation, and continued bond as
previously set. Appellant’s request to amend bond for release to Cairn Recovery
Resources was denied.
{¶5} Prior to sentencing on January 27, 2025, Appellant sought to withdraw his
guilty plea, alleging he was misled by counsel into believing he would be released to Cairn
Recovery Resources, and citing a perceived conflict of interest due to his counsel’s prior
association with his former attorney, Keith Edwards. The court denied this motion finding
no conflict of interest existed and the court affirmed the voluntary nature of his plea. At
sentencing, the court noted the Appellant’s extensive criminal history, including prior
felonies such as aggravated robbery, burglary, and domestic violence, as well as a 60-
month prison term in 2017. Appellant acknowledged his prior record but denied
tampering with the license plate in the instant matter.
{¶6} Counsel filed the instant brief and request to withdraw stating “counsel has
carefully examined the facts and matters contained in the record on appeal and has
researched the law in connection therewith and has concluded that the appeal does not
present a nonfrivolous legal question. In reaching this conclusion, counsel has thoroughly
read the record and has examined the record for any arguable violations of the
Constitution, Ohio statutes, the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Ohio Rules of
Evidence, and the Ohio Sentencing Guidelines.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶7} The United States Supreme Court held in Anders that if, after 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. Anders,
at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record
that could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client with
a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and (2) allow his client sufficient time to raise
any matters that the client chooses.
Id. Once the defendant’s counsel has satisfied 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 that 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.
Id.
{¶8} On March 19, 2025, Attorney Chris Brigdon, appellate counsel for Appellant,
filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. Attorney Brigdon states that he has
reviewed the original court file, the transcripts of all proceedings, has reviewed the
applicable law and can find no error committed by the trial court prejudicial to the rights
of Appellant that would support an appeal. Attorney Brigdon requests that this Court
review the transcript of proceedings and the case file to determine whether any possible
error exists. On April 1, 2025, via Judgment Entry, this Court informed Appellant that the
Court received notice that an Anders brief had been filed on his behalf, and that he was
supplied with a copy thereof. That same Judgment Entry granted Appellant sixty (60)
days from the date of the Entry to file a pro se brief in support of his appeal. Appellant
has not filed a pro se brief. The State has also not filed a responsive brief.
{¶9} The record establishes that Appellant’s counsel satisfied the Anders
requirements. Accordingly, we will proceed to review the findings of the trial court to
determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist keeping in mind that:
Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in
arguable merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because the
prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply or
because it is uncertain whether a defendant will prevail on the issue on
appeal. An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law involved, no
responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.
State v. Pullen, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.); State v. Marbury,
2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 7-8
(2d Dist.); State v. Chessman,
2005-Ohio-2511, ¶ 16-17 (2d Dist.); State v. Moore, 2009-
Ohio-1416, ¶4 (2d Dist.); State v. Reynolds,
2024-Ohio-1956, ¶ 10 (5th Dist.).
ANALYSIS
{¶10} The Notice of Appeal filed on Appellant’s behalf dated July 25, 2024, states
that he is appealing the Judgment Entry entered in the trial court on July 22, 2024, but no
potential or proposed assignments of error are asserted. Likewise, there are no proposed
assignments of error in Attorney Brigdon’s Anders brief, other than stating there are no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
{¶11} Here, after independently reviewing the entire record, we conclude that
Appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. The written plea
form was signed by all parties. During the change of plea hearing, the prosecution
outlined the charge to which the Appellant would plead guilty to (Count 4), attempted
tampering with evidence and Appellant understood the charges. The trial court fully
complied with the constitutional requirements of Crim. R. 11 and substantially complied,
or more than substantially complied, with the non-constitutional requirements. Appellant
was represented by counsel, was informed that this felony carried a maximum prison term
of 18 months and a fine of up to $5,000, with the possibility of up to two years of optional
post-release control, all of which the Appellant acknowledged understanding.
{¶12} Appellant confirmed he understood the charge and penalties, and his
counsel, Zachary Tabler, affirmed that the plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily. Appellant denied being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication,
and confirmed satisfaction with his counsel’s advice and assistance. Thus, there is no
nonfrivolous issue for appeal regarding Appellant’s guilty plea.
{¶13} Similarly, there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal concerning the
Appellant’s sentence. The record reveals near-maximum sentence was justified by
Appellant’s criminal history and the offense’s impact. The sentencing entry states it
considered the principles and purposes of sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11 as well
as the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. Given that the court
followed Ohio sentencing law and imposed a sentence supported by the evidence and
statutory considerations, there are no nonfrivolous issues to present resulting from
sentencing.
CONCLUSION
{¶14} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel’s
conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. We
therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders. Attorney Brigdon’s motion
to withdraw as counsel for Appellant is hereby granted. The judgment of the Muskingum
County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, is affirmed.
By: Montgomery, J.
King, P.J. and
Popham, J. concur.
