[Cite as State v. Crawford, 2016-Ohio-3221.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-11-027
: DECISION
- vs - 5/31/2016
:
JAMES R. CRAWFORD, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI20130172
Stephen J. Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Adkins, 59 North Main
Street, London, Ohio 43140, for plaintiff-appellee
Thomas J.C. Arrington, 67 East High Street, London, Ohio 43140, 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
Madison County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.
{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, James Crawford, 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
Madison CA2015-11-027
errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of
error may be predicated; (2) lists two 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-
State v. Crawford
Combined Opinion