In re M.L.

2014 Ohio 170
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 21, 2014
DocketCA2013-08-154 CA2013-08-155 CA2013-08-156
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ohio 170 (In re M.L.) 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 M.L., 2014 Ohio 170 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[Cite as In re M.L., 2014-Ohio-170.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: : CASE NOS. CA2013-08-154 M.L., et al. : CA2013-08-155 CA2013-08-156 : DECISION : 1/21/2014

:

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JN2011-0190

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

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

Meredith Schnug, 10 Journal Square, 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. Butler CA2013-08-154 CA2013-08-155 CA2013-08-156

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, C.W., 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} 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)
2014 Ohio 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ml-ohioctapp-2014.