State v. Cody , 2022 Ohio 874 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Cody, 
    2022-Ohio-874
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    CLINTON COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                 :
    Appellee,                               :        CASE NO. CA2021-08-023
    :              DECISION
    - vs -                                                     3/21/2022
    :
    AARON D. CODY, JR.                             :
    Appellant.                              :
    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
    Case No. TRC 21 00477 A
    Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and David Henry, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    Rose & Dobyns Co., L.P.A., and Blaise Underwood, for appellant.
    Per Curiam.
    {¶1}     This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
    appellant, Aaron D. Cody, Jr., the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript
    of proceedings and original papers from the Clinton 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
    the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court
    Clinton CA2021-08-023
    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}    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.
    PIPER, P.J., S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
    -2-
    [Cite as State v. Cody, 
    2022-Ohio-874
    .]
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA2021-08-023

Citation Numbers: 2022 Ohio 874

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/21/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/21/2022