In re J.Q.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re J.Q., 2018-Ohio-2082.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: : J.Q. : CASE NO. CA2017-11-015 : DECISION 5/29/2018 : : APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 20172022 Kirsten Knight, P.O. Box 137, Germantown, Ohio 45327, for appellant, J.Q. Martin P. Votel, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, Valerie Sargent-Wood, Preble County Courthouse, 101 East Main Street, Eaton, Ohio 45320, for appellee, state of Ohio 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 Preble County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, J.Q., has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of Preble CA2017-11-015 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. {¶ 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. 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. S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, 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.
