State v. Cox , 2019 Ohio 1399 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Cox, 2019-Ohio-1399.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    CLERMONT COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                    :
    Appellee,                                 :         CASE NO. CA2018-05-026
    :              DECISION
    - vs -                                                        4/15/2019
    :
    EUGENE E. COX,                                    :
    Appellant.                                :
    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    Case No. 2018 CR 00019
    D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South
    Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee
    W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, 302 East
    Main Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellant
    Eugene E. Cox, #A-743489, Madison Correctional Institution, 1851 State Route 56,
    London, Ohio 43140, appellant, pro se
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
    appellant Eugene E. Cox, 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 and appellant's pro se brief.
    {¶ 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 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} Appellant has filed a pro se brief raising one assignment of error pertaining
    to the 30-month sentence he received.
    {¶ 4} We have accordingly examined the record, the potential assignment of
    error presented in counsel's brief, and the assignment of error in appellant's pro se brief,
    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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA2018-05-026

Citation Numbers: 2019 Ohio 1399

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/15/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2019