State v. Nichols

Full title: STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. DEIRDRE NICHOLS Defendant-Appellant

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County

Date published: Oct 12, 2012

2012 Ohio 4751 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

C.A. CASE NO. 25056 T.C. NO. 11CR3525/2

10-12-2012

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. DEIRDRE NICHOLS Defendant-Appellant

CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee ANTONY A. ABBOUD, Atty. Reg. No. 0078151, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant DEIRDRE NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant

DONOVAN

(Criminal appeal from

Common Pleas Court)

OPINION

CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee ANTONY A. ABBOUD, Atty. Reg. No. 0078151, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant DEIRDRE NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant DONOVAN, J.

{¶ 1} Appointed counsel for defendant-appellant Dierdre Nichols submitted an appellate brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal. After a thorough review of the record, this Court agrees that the trial court's proceedings were proper, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.

{¶ 2} The record establishes that on January 20, 2012, Nichols pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a felony of the first degree, and one count of aggravated assault, a felony of the fourth degree. On February 1, 2012, the trial court sentenced Nichols to four years in prison for the aggravated robbery count and eighteen months in prison for the aggravated assault count. The trial court ordered that her sentences be served concurrently, for an aggregate prison term of four years.

{¶ 3} Nichols filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on February 27, 2012. On June 14, 2012, appointed counsel representing Nichols submitted an Anders brief, alleging that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal. By magistrate's order of June 15, 2012, we informed Nichols that her counsel filed an Anders brief and informed her of the significance of an Anders brief. We invited Nichols to file a pro se brief assigning any error for our review within sixty days. Nichols has not filed anything with this Court.

{¶ 4} In the performance of our duty, under Anders v. California, to conduct an independent review of the record, we have found no potential assignments of error having arguable merit. We conclude that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. GRADY, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Carley J. Ingram
Antony A. Abboud
Deirdre Nichols
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins