State v. Murrill
This text of 2017 Ohio 7120 (State v. Murrill) 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. Murrill, 2017-Ohio-7120.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-01-007
: DECISION - vs - 8/7/2017 :
ROBERT MURRILL, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2012-12-1936
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Christopher Paul Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, 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, Robert Murrill, 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 Butler CA2017-01-007
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 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., PIPER and M. POWELL, 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 7120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murrill-ohioctapp-2017.