State v. Foster ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Foster, 
    2018-Ohio-4561
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    BUTLER COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                     :
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                        :      CASE NO. CA2017-07-108
    :         AMENDED DECISION
    - vs -                                                     ON REOPENING
    :            11/13/2018
    RODNEY DWAYNE FOSTER,                              :
    Defendant-Appellant.                       :
    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    Case No. CR2016-01-0083
    Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315
    High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
    Rodney Dwayne Foster, #A726786, London Correctional Institution, 1580 State Route 56
    SW, London, Ohio 43140, defendant-appellant, pro se
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} This cause is before the court after the appeal was reopened pursuant to an
    App.R. 26(B) application filed by appellant. Appellant's application to reopen was granted on
    the basis that appellant was not informed that he could file a pro se brief after his counsel
    filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S.Ct. 1396
     (1967).
    {¶ 2}     Appellant has now filed a pro se brief and the case has been considered upon
    Butler CA2017-07-108
    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
    no error brief previously filed by appellant's counsel and appellant's pro se brief.
    {¶ 3} Appellant's pro se brief raises four assignments of error pertaining to
    ineffectiveness of trial counsel, ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, withholding of
    exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor, and appellant's lack of culpability in the victim's
    death.
    {¶ 4} We have accordingly examined the record and considered the arguments
    raised in counsel's brief and in appellant's pro se brief and find no error prejudicial to
    appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for
    the reason that it is wholly frivolous.
    S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA2017-07-108

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/13/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2018