[Cite as State v. Allen, 2017-Ohio-424.]



                                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           CLERMONT COUNTY




STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Plaintiff-Appellee,                       :       CASE NO. CA2016-06-035

                                                  :              DECISION
    - vs -                                                        2/6/2017
                                                  :

DANIEL T. ALLEN,                                  :

        Defendant-Appellant.                      :



    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. 2016CR0064



D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd
Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee

W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, 302 East Main Street, Batavia, Ohio
45103, 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

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, a brief filed by appellant's counsel and upon a

reply brief filed by the state of Ohio.

        {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Daniel T. Allen, has filed a brief with this court pursuant
                                                                    Clermont CA2016-06-035

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 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-
