[Cite as State v. Nichols, 2012-Ohio-4751.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25056
v. : T.C. NO. 11CR3525/2
DEIRDRE NICHOLS : (Criminal appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 12th day of October , 2012.
..........
CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W.
Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ANTONY A. ABBOUD, Atty. Reg. No. 0078151, 130 West Second Street, Suite 1818,
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
DEIRDRE NICHOLS, 2787 Jupiter Street, Dayton, Ohio 45404
Defendant-Appellant
..........
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} Appointed counsel for defendant-appellant Dierdre Nichols submitted an
appellate brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967), alleging that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal. After a thorough
review of the record, this Court agrees that the trial court’s proceedings were proper, and we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
{¶ 2} The record establishes that on January 20, 2012, Nichols pled guilty to one
count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a felony of the first degree, and one
count of aggravated assault, a felony of the fourth degree. On February 1, 2012, the trial
court sentenced Nichols to four years in prison for the aggravated robbery count and
eighteen months in prison for the aggravated assault count. The trial court ordered that her
sentences be served concurrently, for an aggregate prison term of four years.
{¶ 3} Nichols filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on February 27, 2012.
On June 14, 2012, appointed counsel representing Nichols submitted an Anders brief,
alleging that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal. By magistrate’s order of June
15, 2012, we informed Nichols that her counsel filed an Anders brief and informed her of the
significance of an Anders brief. We invited Nichols to file a pro se brief assigning any error
for our review within sixty days. Nichols has not filed anything with this Court.
{¶ 4} In the performance of our duty, under Anders v. California, to conduct an
independent review of the record, we have found no potential assignments of error having
arguable merit. We conclude that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, the judgment of
the trial court is Affirmed.
..........
3
GRADY, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Carley J. Ingram
Antony A. Abboud
Deirdre Nichols
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins