State v. Brinker
This text of 2017 Ohio 5504 (State v. Brinker) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Brinker, 2017-Ohio-5504.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-07-129
: DECISION - vs - 6/26/2017 :
BRYAN LEE BRINKER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2011-04-0501
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee
Scott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument, Hamilton, OH 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 the brief filed by appellant's counsel.
{¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Bryan Brinker, 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 Butler CA2016-07-129
trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be
predicated; (2) lists five 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.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2017 Ohio 5504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brinker-ohioctapp-2017.