State v. Isreal

2025 Ohio 785
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 10, 2025
DocketCA2024-10-119
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ohio 785 (State v. Isreal) 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. Isreal, 2025 Ohio 785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Isreal, 2025-Ohio-785.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

: STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2024-10-119 Appellee, : DECISION 3/10/2025 - vs - :

: OTIS ALFONZO ISREAL, : Appellant.

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2024-07-1004

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mike Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

John H. Forg, III, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

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

appellant, Otis Alfonzo Isreal, 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 briefs.

{¶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 Butler CA2024-10-119

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; (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.

HENRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and SIEBERT, JJ., concur.

-2- [Cite as State v. Isreal, 2025-Ohio-785.]

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 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-isreal-ohioctapp-2025.