State v. Williams , 2023 Ohio 186 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-186.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2021-11-021
: DECISION
- vs - 1/23/2023
:
JAJUAN D. WILLIAMS, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI20200148
Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel Price, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Culp, Parsons, and Murray LLC, and Joshua W. Beasley, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
appellant, Jajuan D. Williams, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript
of proceedings and original papers from the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, and
upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.
{¶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
Madison CA2021-11-021
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., HENDRICKSON and BYRNE, JJ., concur.