State v. Rice

2020 Ohio 1066
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 23, 2020
DocketCA2019-08-135
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 Ohio 1066 (State v. Rice) 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. Rice, 2020 Ohio 1066 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rice, 2020-Ohio-1066.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-08-135

: DECISION - vs - 3/23/2020 :

LESLIE RICE, :

Appellant. :

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR18-05-0897

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Willa Concannon, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee

Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant

Per Curiam.

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

appellant, Leslie Rice, 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 CA2019-08-135

{¶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

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.

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

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Rice
2020 Ohio 1066 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ohio 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rice-ohioctapp-2020.