Court Opinion

ID: 9951923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 15:12:33.391172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:42.240800
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Davis, 2024-Ohio-999.]

                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                         TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           CLERMONT COUNTY

                                                  :
 STATE OF OHIO,
                                                  :     CASE NO. CA2023-10-070
        Appellee,
                                                  :          DECISION
                                                              3/18/2024
     - vs -                                       :

                                                  :
 JOEL R. DAVIS,
                                                  :
        Appellant.

 CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                      Case No. 2023 CR 0015

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas Horton,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Treleven & Klingensmith, LLC, and John Treleven, for appellant.

        Per Curiam.

        {¶1}     This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Joel R. Davis, 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 the brief filed by appellant's counsel.
                                                              Clermont CA2023-10-070

       {¶2}   Appellant's counsel 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 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.

       S. POWELL, P.J., M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

                                            -2-