State v. Shaw

2015 Ohio 4743
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 16, 2015
DocketCA2015-05-087
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 Ohio 4743 (State v. Shaw) 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. Shaw, 2015 Ohio 4743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Shaw, 2015-Ohio-4743.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-05-087

: DECISION - vs - 11/16/2015 :

CHRISTOPHER SHAW, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2012-05-0798

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee

Scott N. Blauvelt, 246 High Street, 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 the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Christopher Shaw, 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 Butler CA2015-05-087

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of

error may be predicated; (2) lists four 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.

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

-2-

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)
2015 Ohio 4743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shaw-ohioctapp-2015.