State v. Truss-Palmer
This text of 2019 Ohio 258 (State v. Truss-Palmer) 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. Truss-Palmer, 2019-Ohio-258.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2018-02-033 CA2018-02-034 : - vs - DECISION : 1/28/2019 DORYN TRUSS-PALMER aka DORYN PALMER-TRUSS, JR. :
Appellant :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2017-03-0487
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Charles M. Conliff, 5145 Pleasant Avenue, Suite 8, P.O. Box 18424, Fairfield, Ohio 45018, for appellant
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by
appellant Doryn Truss-Palmer, aka Doryn Palmer-Truss, Jr., 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 a brief filed by appellant's counsel.
{¶ 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 seven 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.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 Ohio 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-truss-palmer-ohioctapp-2019.