State v. Sweet
This text of 2025 Ohio 1126 (State v. Sweet) 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. Sweet, 2025-Ohio-1126.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
: STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2024-10-074 Appellee, : DECISION 3/31/2025 - vs - :
: JERRY LEE SWEET, JR., : Appellant.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2024 CR 0263
Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick Horton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
appellant, Jerry Lee Sweet, Jr., 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 briefs. Clermont CA2024-10-074
{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (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; (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.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., BYRNE and SIEBERT, JJ., concur.
-2- [Cite as State v. Sweet, 2025-Ohio-1126.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sweet-ohioctapp-2025.