First District Friday Roundup! 5/20/2022

Friday is here again! The library will be hosting a CLE next month on June 30, 2022. Join us via Zoom 12-1 pm as Attorneys Kathryn E. Buerger, William Hesch Law Firm, LLC, and Amy L. Kurlansky, Hamilton County Law Library, provide an Introduction to Elder Law Hot Topics. Sign up here: CLE Introduction to Elder Law Hot Topics

Back to our scheduled First District Decisions:

5/18/2022
State of Ohio v. Perry Stephens
C-210481
Quote from Judgement Ruling:
The court sua sponte removes this case from the regular calendar and places it on the court’s accelerated calendar, 1st Dist. Loc.R. 11.1.1(A), and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See Rep.Op.R. 3.1; App.R. 11.1(E). Defendant-appellant Perry Stephens appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court convicting him, after a jury trial, of domestic violence. Stephens was convicted of “knowingly caus[ing] or attempting to cause physical harm to a family or household member,” in violation R.C. 2919.25(A). The state presented evidence that Stephens kicked his mother Rebecca in the knee and slapped her across her face while in her home on the evening of July 31, 2021. Both contacts broke Rebecca’s skin. Further, according to Rebecca, Stephens told her he had been “aiming for [her] head,” not her knee, and he disappeared from the home after the altercation but before the police arrived.
Rebecca’s testimony concerning her injuries was corroborated by the testimony of the investigating police officer and three photographs that were admitted into evidence. Stephens did not testify.

5/18/2022
State of Ohio v. Brandon Bryant
C-210520
Quote from Judgement Ruling:
We consider this appeal on the accelerated calendar, and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See Rep.Op.R. 3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 1st Dist. Loc.R. 11.1.1. Defendant appellant’s appointed counsel has advised this court that, after a thorough review of the record, he can find nothing that would arguably support appellant’s appeal, and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see also Freels v. Hills, 843 F.2d 958 (6th Cir.1988). Counsel, as required by Anders, has communicated this conclusion to appellant, and has offered appellant an opportunity to respond and to raise any issues. Counsel has also moved this court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders at 744; see also 1st Dist. Loc.R. 16.2(C)(1) and 16.2(D)(2). Counsel now requests that this court independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders at 744. We have done so, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that the proceedings below were free of error.