# State v. Brown

> Ohio Court of Appeals · April 28, 2014 · 2014 Ohio 1798

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2707851

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 28, 2014
- **Citations:** 2014 Ohio 1798
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2707851

## Opinion text

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2014-Ohio-1798.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-11-206

: DECISION
- vs - 4/28/2014
:

SHONDRIA BROWN, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2012-07-1063

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315
High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee

Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Bldg., 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-
appellant

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, 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 a brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Shondria Brown, has filed a brief with this

court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)
Butler CA2013-11-206

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} 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.

RINGLAND, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2707851. Public record. Not legal advice.