State v. Howard
This text of State v. Howard (State v. Howard) 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. Howard, 2026-Ohio-1232.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
: STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-07-073 Appellee, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY - vs - : 4/6/2026
: SHIVIEZ MONTREL HOWARD, : Appellant.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2024-10-1513
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher Frederick, for appellant.
____________ DECISION
Per Curiam.
{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
appellant, Shiviez Montrel Howard, 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 CA2025-07-073
{¶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 two
potential errors "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.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and SIEBERT, JJ., concur.
-2- Butler CA2025-07-073
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 Common Pleas Court 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.
Costs to be taxed to appellant.
/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Howard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howard-ohioctapp-2026.