State v. Sears

2024 Ohio 126
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 16, 2024
DocketCA2023-09-063
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 Ohio 126 (State v. Sears) 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. Sears, 2024 Ohio 126 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Sears, 2024-Ohio-126.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

: STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2023-09-063 Appellee, : DECISION 1/16/2024 - vs - :

: DAVID JAMES SEARS, : Appellant.

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2023 CR 000191

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick Horton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

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

appellant, David James Sears, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clermont County Court of Common

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. Clermont CA2023-09-063

{¶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 two potential errors "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 BYRNE, JJ., concur.

NOTICE TO THE CLERK:

Serve a copy of this decision upon appellant at: David James Sears, #A818253, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London, OH 43140

-2- [Cite as State v. Sears, 2024-Ohio-126.]

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 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sears-ohioctapp-2024.