Court Opinion

ID: 2718588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-18 19:07:15.7965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:05.868057
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Armstrong, 2014-Ohio-3555.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                          CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :
                                                        CASE NOS. CA2014-01-007
        Plaintiff-Appellee,                      :                CA2014-01-008
                                                                  CA2014-01-009
                                                 :
  - vs -                                                       DECISION
                                                 :              8/18/2014

BRITTON ARMSTRONG,                               :

        Defendant-Appellant.                     :

    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                         Case No. 2013 CR 0317

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

R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, 302 East Main
Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, 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 the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

        {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Britton Armstrong, 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
                                                                        Butler CA2014-01-007
                                                                               CA2014-01-008
                                                                               CA2014-01-009

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 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.

       RINGLAND, P.J., S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.

                                             -2-