State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2003)
State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Defendant-appellant Kimberly Thomas appeals her conviction for assault, a violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} On appeal, counsel for Thomas has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,1 stating that counsel has conscientiously reviewed the record and can discern no reversible errors in the trial proceedings. Consequently, counsel has sought to withdraw from representation and requests that this court, consistent withAnders, independently review the record to determine whether the proceedings below were free from prejudicial error. Counsel, as required by Anders, has given Thomas an opportunity to provide grounds for this appeal, but Thomas has chosen not to do so.
{¶ 4} After reviewing the entire record, we are satisfied that Thomas's counsel has provided Thomas with a diligent and thorough search of the record and that counsel has correctly concluded that the proceedings below were free of prejudicial error. We conclude that Thomas's appeal is completely without merit and is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we overrule counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 5} Although we hold that this appeal is frivolous under App.R. 23 and without "reasonable cause" under R.C.
{¶ 6} Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27.
Doan, P.J., Hildebrandt, and Painter, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.