State v. Ghonamy
This text of 2017 Ohio 422 (State v. Ghonamy) 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. Ghonamy, 2017-Ohio-422.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-07-130
: DECISION - vs - 2/6/2017 :
WALED A. GHONAMY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2016-02-0144
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, 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 a brief filed by appellant's counsel.
{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Waled A. Ghonamy, 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 Butler CA2016-07-130
by the 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., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2017 Ohio 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ghonamy-ohioctapp-2017.