State v. Jordan, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2004)
Opinion
{¶ 2} On January 22, 2003, this court permitted Jordan to file a delayed appeal, and on March 7, 2003, this court appointed counsel to pursue Jordan's appeal. On July 2, 2003, appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief pursuant to Anders v.California (1967),
{¶ 3} On December 16, 2003, this court, by decision and entry, notified Jordan that appointed appellate counsel had filed an Anders brief and explained the significance of an Anders brief. Jordan was accorded sixty days to file a pro se brief assigning errors for review by this court. As of the rendition of this opinion and judgment, Jordan has filed nothing with this court.
{¶ 4} Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders to independently examine the record and consider applicable law, we conclude as did appointed appellate counsel that there are no arguably meritorious issues for appellate review and that Jordan's appeal is entirely frivolous.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
Brogan, J. and Grady, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2004 Ohio 1022 (State v. Jordan, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2004)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.