State v. Cummings

2025 Ohio 4778
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 20, 2025
DocketCA2025-01-0010; CA2025-01-0011; CA2025-01-0012; CA2025-01-0013
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ohio 4778 (State v. Cummings) 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
State v. Cummings, 2025 Ohio 4778 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cummings, 2025-Ohio-4778.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

: STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NOS. CA2025-01-0010 Appellee, CA2025-01-0011 : CA2025-01-0012 CA2025-01-0013 - vs - : DECISION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY BRIAN J. CUMMINGS, 10/20/2025 : Appellant.

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case Nos. CR2022-07-0954; CR2023-02-0259; CR2024-04-0503; CR2024-06-0827

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Michele K. Temmel, for appellant.

____________ DECISION

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Brian J. Cummings, 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. Butler CA2025-01-010 thru -013

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (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," Id. at 744; (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.

BYRNE, P.J., M. POWELL and SIEBERT, JJ., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The brief of appellant, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), properly before this court and having been considered by the court, it is ordered that the motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is hereby dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Decision and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

-2- Butler CA2025-01-010 thru -013

Costs to be taxed to appellant.

/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

-3-

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)
2025 Ohio 4778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cummings-ohioctapp-2025.