State v. Tighe
This text of 2016 Ohio 1154 (State v. Tighe) 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. Tighe, 2016-Ohio-1154.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-10-080
: DECISION - vs - 3/21/2016 :
NATHAN JEREMIAH SOUZZI TIGHE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2015CR00458
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee
W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, 204 North Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, 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
Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel.
{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Nathan Jeremiah Souzzi Tighe, has filed a
brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), Clermont CA2015-10-080
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., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 Ohio 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tighe-ohioctapp-2016.