[Cite as State v. Adkins, 2017-Ohio-248.]



                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            PREBLE COUNTY




STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Plaintiff-Appellee,                       :     CASE NO. CA2016-02-001

                                                  :            DECISION
    - vs -                                                      1/23/2017
                                                  :

BRYAN SCOTT ADKINS,                               :

        Defendant-Appellant.                      :



       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                           Case No. 13-CR-11738



Martin P. Votel, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, Kathryn M. West, Preble County
Courthouse, 101 East Main Street, Eaton, Ohio 45320, for plaintiff-appellee

H. Michele Thomas, 100 West Main Street, Eaton, Ohio 45320, 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

Preble County Court of Common Pleas, and upon briefs filed by both parties.

        {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Bryan Scott Adkins, 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 the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the
                                                                        Preble CA2016-02-001

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. 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.


       M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and PIPER, JJ., concur.




                                              -2-
