State v. Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2011-Ohio-2213.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, : : CASE NO. CA2010-09-242 : DECISION 5/9/2011 - vs : JASON JONES, Defendant-Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2005-09-1631 Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee Billy W. Guinigundo, 5331 South Gilmore Road, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for defendantappellant Jason Jones, #A529115, Ross Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 7010, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601, 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 Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel and appellant's pro se brief, oral argument having been waived. Butler CA2000-00-000 {¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Jason Jones, 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) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. Appellant has filed a pro se brief raising assignments of error pertaining to his resentencing hearing, a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, and Crim.R. 32 rights. {¶3} We have accordingly examined the record, the potential assignments 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. 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. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, 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.
