State v. Rarden
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Rarden, 2004-Ohio-421.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2003-08-188 (Accelerated Calendar) : -vs- D E C I S I O N 2/2/2004 : LONNIE RARDEN, : Defendant-Appellant. : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2003-03-0375 Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Randi E. Froug, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45012-0515, for plaintiff-appellee Frank M. Mungo, 524 Greenup Street, Covington, KY 41011, for defendant-appellant and Lonnie Rarden, Inmate Number 455-111, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, OH 45601, pro se Per Curiam {¶1} appeal, This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of 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 the briefs filed by counsel and defendant-appellant, Lonnie Rarden, pro se, oral argument having been waived. {¶2} Counsel for appellant 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 one potential error "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} Appellant has filed a pro se brief raising an assignment of error which is identical to counsel's potential assignment of error pertaining to the denial of jail-time credit. We have accordingly examined the record, the potential assignment of error presented in counsel's brief, and the assignment of error in appellant's pro se brief and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. Therefore, the motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is hereby dismissed for the reason that frivolous. YOUNG, P.J., POWELL and VALEN, JJ., concur. it is wholly
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
