Court Opinion

ID: 4029331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-08-29 15:11:55.954709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:38.243024
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Frodge, 2016-Ohio-5563.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                             CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                      :

        Plaintiff-Appellee,                         :     CASE NO. CA2016-03-016

                                                    :            DECISION
    - vs -                                                        8/29/2016
                                                    :

JERRY FRODGE,                                       :

        Defendant-Appellant.                        :

    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                         Case No. 2015-CR-00536

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South
Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee

Louis Rubenstein, John D. Hill, 125 East Court Street, Suite 1000, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
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

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon briefs filed by counsel.

        {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Jerry Frodge, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful
                                                                     Clermont CA2016-03-016

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 three 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} 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.

       M. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, J., concur.

                                              -2-