In re X.D.

2013 Ohio 3224
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 24, 2013
DocketCA2013-03-036, CA2013-03-037
StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Ohio 3224 (In re X.D.) 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 X.D., 2013 Ohio 3224 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[Cite as In re X.D., 2013-Ohio-3224.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

IN RE: : CASE NOS. CA2013-03-036 X.D., et al. : CA2013-03-037

: DECISION 7/24/2013 :

:

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JN2011-0529

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

Amy R. Ashcraft, 240 East State Street, Trenton, Ohio 45067, for appellant

Richard Koehler, 6 South Second Street, Suite 205, 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 a

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

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Robert D., 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.

S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.

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 3224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-xd-ohioctapp-2013.