[Cite as State v. Orellana-Rodas, 2018-Ohio-222.]



                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            BUTLER COUNTY




STATE OF OHIO,                                      :

        Plaintiff-Appellee,                         :   CASE NO. CA2017-08-126

                                                    :          DECISION
    - vs -                                                      1/22/2018
                                                    :

EDVIN J. ORELLANA-RODAS,                            :

        Defendant-Appellant.                        :



              APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                            Case No. CR2017-01-0052



Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, 315 High Street, 11th Floor,
Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee

Mary K. Martin, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 101, Mason, Ohio 45040, 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

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

        {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Edvin Orellana-Rodas, 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
                                                                        Butler CA2017-08-126

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.


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




                                              -2-
