Court Opinion

ID: 9365279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 17:07:21.711166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.552378
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Ailes, 2023-Ohio-184.]

                                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                             TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

        Appellee,                                 :        CASE NO. CA2022-07-067

                                                  :              DECISION
     - vs -                                                       1/23/2023
                                                  :

 LLOYD WENDELL AILES,                             :

        Appellant.                                :

       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No.CR2021-12-1585

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Drake Law Practice, and Christopher C. Bazeley, for appellant.

        Per Curiam.

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

appellant, Lloyd Wendell Ailes, 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 the brief filed by appellant's counsel, appellant's pro se briefs, and the state's brief in

response.
                                                                        Butler CA2022-07-067

       {¶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 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}    Appellant has filed pro se briefs raising issues related to ineffective assistance

of trial counsel, the validity of his arrest warrant, sentencing, and several factual issues.

       {¶4}    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, JJ., concur.