State v. Claypool
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Claypool, 2004-Ohio-5330.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BROWN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, : : CASE NO. CA2003-11- : D E C I S I O N 10/4/2004 016 -vs: CHARLES CLAYPOOL, Defendant-Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2001-2090 Thomas F. Grennan, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney, 200 E. Cherry Street, Georgetown, OH 45121, for plaintiff-appellee David E. Grimes, Brown County Public Defender, 112 Main Street, Ripley, OH 45167, 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 Brown County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel, oral argument having been waived. {¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Charles Claypool, 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 Brown CA2003-11-016 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} 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. Therefore, the motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is hereby dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous. YOUNG, P.J., POWELL and VALEN, JJ., concur. - 2 -
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.
