State v. Ivory

2024 Ohio 1400
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 15, 2024
DocketCA2024-01-002
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 Ohio 1400 (State v. Ivory) 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. Ivory, 2024 Ohio 1400 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Ivory, 2024-Ohio-1400.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-01-002

: DECISION - vs - 4/15/2024 :

CALVIONTAY DY'WAUN TODD IVORY, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 23CR40587

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Engel & Martin, LLC, and Joshua A. Engel, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

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

appellant, Calviontay Dy'Waun Todd Ivory, the transcript of the docket and journal entries,

the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Warren County Court of

Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel 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 by the trial court Warren CA2024-01-002

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," 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.

S. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER JJ., concur.

-2- [Cite as State v. Ivory, 2024-Ohio-1400.]

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)
2024 Ohio 1400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ivory-ohioctapp-2024.