State v. Saurber , 2022 Ohio 1801 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Saurber, 2022-Ohio-1801.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2022-01-011
CA2022-01-013
: CA2022-01-014
- vs -
: DECISION
5/31/2022
AUSTIN REED SAURBER, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2021-10-1335
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
appellant, Austin Reed Saurber, 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.
{¶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
Butler CA2022-01-011
CA2022-01-013
CA2022-01-014
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.
M. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.