State v. Masur, (Ohio 2002)

Ohio Supreme Court

Status: 2002-Ohio-171

Docket Number: CA2001-07-010

Parts: Per Curiam

Linked as:

Summary

Anders no error

Summary

Anders no error

Text

[Cite as State v. Masur, 2002-Ohio-171.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BROWN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

:

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2001-07-010

: D E C I S I O N - vs -

1/22/2002 :

CHARLES MASUR,

:

Defendant-Appellant. :

Thomas F. Grennan, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney, 200 East Cherry Street, Georgetown, Ohio 45121, for plaintiff-appellee C. Nicholas Ring, 318 West State Street, Georgetown, Ohio 45121, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam. 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 Brown County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's coun- sel, oral argument having been waived.

Counsel for defendant-appellant, Charles Masur, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, which (1) indicates that a careful review

- 1 -

Brown CA2001-07-010

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 one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the rec- ord independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's con- stitutional 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.

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. Therefore, 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 frivo- lous.

WALSH, P.J., POWELL and YOUNG, JJ., concur.

- 2 -

- 2 -

[Cite as State v. Masur, 2002-Ohio-171.]

- 3 -