Court Opinion

ID: 4277075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-21 19:43:46.448427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:26.048103
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hawkins-Stephens, 2018-Ohio-1985.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                         :

        Plaintiff-Appellee,                            :   CASE NO. CA2017-08-128

                                                       :        DECISION
    - vs -                                                       5/21/2018
                                                       :

THERESA D. HAWKINS-STEPHENS,                           :

        Defendant-Appellant.                           :

      CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                         Case No. CR2016-05-0612

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee

Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 305, 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 and amended brief filed by

appellant's counsel.

        {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Theresa D. Hawkins-Stephens, has filed a brief with this
                                                                        Butler CA2017-08-128

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 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.

       HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.

                                              -2-