State v. Sturgill
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Sturgill, 2008-Ohio-1018.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, : : CASE NO. CA2007-05-063 : DECISION 3/10/2008 - vs : ISOME E. STURGILL, JR., Defendant-Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case Nos. 2007-CR-00039 and 2006-CR-001023 Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, David H. Hoffmann, 123 North Third Street, Batavia OH 45103, for plaintiff-appellee R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, 10 South Third Street, Batavia OH 45103, for defendant-appellant Isome E. Sturgill, Jr., # A-548489, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London OH 43140-0069, defendant-appellant, pro se 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 Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, upon a brief filed by counsel for appellant, Isome E. Sturgill, Jr., a pro se brief filed by appellant, a responsive brief filed on behalf of appellee, the state of Ohio, and a pro se reply brief filed by appellant. {¶2} Counsel for appellant 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 three assignments of error, and a reply to the responsive brief filed by appellee. {¶4} We have examined the record, the potential assignment of error presented in counsel's brief, and the assignments 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 dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous. BRESSLER, P.J., YOUNG and POWELL, JJ., concur.
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.
