In re J.A.M.

2013 Ohio 449
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 11, 2013
DocketCA2012-08-159
StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Ohio 449 (In re J.A.M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re J.A.M., 2013 Ohio 449 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[Cite as In re J.A.M., 2013-Ohio-449.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: J.A.M., et al. :

: CASE NO. CA2012-08-159

: DECISION 2/11/2013 :

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JN2009-0383

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, James Monk, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for appellee

Heather Felerski, P.O. Box 181342, Fairfield, Ohio 45018, for appellant

Debra Rothstein, 10 Journal Square, 3rd Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, Guardian Ad Litem

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, Juvenile Division, and upon the

brief filed by appellant's counsel, oral argument having been waived.

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, J.T., 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 Butler CA2000-00-000

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., S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ohio 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jam-ohioctapp-2013.