State v. Lewis, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003) ( 2003 )

DECISION {¶ 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 Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel, oral argument having been waived.

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Ethan Lewis, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California (1967),386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 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 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) informs this court that counsel has diligently attempted to locate appellant in order to serve appellant with a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw but, despite such diligent efforts, has been unable to locate appellant.¹

{¶ 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. We further find that appellant has not been prejudiced by counsel's inability to serve him with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw. Therefore, it is the order of this court that 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.

Young, P.J., Walsh and Powell, JJ., concur.

¹ Based upon representations in the record, appellant has been released from the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and appel-lant's parole officer has been unable to provide counsel with an address for appellant.