State v. Holmes, (Ohio 2011)

Ohio Supreme Court

Linked as:

Summary


Anders no error.

Summary


Anders no error.

Text




[Cite as State v. Holmes, 2011-Ohio-3636.]

      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS      TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO    BUTLER COUNTY          STATE OF OHIO,          :     Plaintiff-Appellee,       :  CASE  NO.  CA2010-12-337    :    D E C I S I O N     - vs -      7/25/2011  :                     JAD  HOLMES,        :     Defendant-Appellant.     :      CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT  Case No. CR2009-10-1806      Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster, Jr., Government  Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45012-0515, for plaintiff- appellee    Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 304, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant- appellant         Per  Curiam.  {¶1}  This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of  the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the  Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel, oral  argument having been waived.  {¶2}  Counsel for defendant-appellant, Jad Holmes, has filed a brief with this court 

- 1 -

Butler CA2010-12-337  pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, which (1) indicates that  a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the  trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be  predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at  744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to  determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of  appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant  on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief  and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.  {¶3}  Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having  been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to  appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court.  The motion of counsel for appellant  requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that  it is wholly frivolous.    HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and HUTZEL, JJ., concur.   

- 2 -

Sponsored links




ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company