State v. Frodge
This text of 2016 Ohio 5563 (State v. Frodge) 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. Frodge, 2016-Ohio-5563.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-03-016
: DECISION - vs - 8/29/2016 :
JERRY FRODGE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2015-CR-00536
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee
Louis Rubenstein, John D. Hill, 125 East Court Street, Suite 1000, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, 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
Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon briefs filed by counsel.
{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Jerry Frodge, 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 Clermont CA2016-03-016
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 three 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} 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.
M. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, J., concur.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 Ohio 5563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frodge-ohioctapp-2016.