Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Neal Harmon

September 30, 2011

STATE OF OHIO
APPELLEE
v.
NEAL HARMON, III
APPELLANT



Trial Court No. CR0200902546

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Singer, J.

Cite as State v. Harmon,

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

{¶1} Appellant, Neal Edward Harmon III, appeals a judgment from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas convicting him on one count of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition.

{¶2} Appellant's appointed counsel has requested leave to withdraw in accordance with the procedure set forth in Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738.

{¶3} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel, after a conscientious examination of the appeal, determines it to be wholly frivolous he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. The request shall include a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably support an appeal. Id. Counsel shall also furnish his client with a copy of the request to withdraw and its accompanying brief, and allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters that he chooses. Id. The appellate court must then conduct a full examination of the proceedings held below to determine if the appeal is indeed frivolous. If the appellate court determines that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements or may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.

{¶4} Here, appointed counsel has met the requirements set forth in Anders.

Counsel also informed appellant of his right to file his own, additional assignments of error and appellate brief. Appellant has filed an additional brief and assigned additional assignments of error. Accordingly, this court shall proceed examining the potential assignments of error set forth by counsel and appellant and the entire record below to determine whether this appeal lacks merit deeming it wholly frivolous.

{¶5} On August 17, 2009, appellant entered a guilty pleas, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, to one count of rape, a violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(a) and (B), a felony of the first degree, and to three counts of gross sexual imposition, violations of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and (B), felonies of the third degree. He was found guilty and sentenced on August 17, 2009, to serve 11 years in prison. On May 5, 2010, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which was denied on June 16, 2010.

{¶6} In conformity with Anders, appellate counsel has set forth three potential assignments of error which she states she has considered and rejected as wholly frivolous:

{¶7} "I. Ineffective assistance of counsel.

{¶8} "II. Involuntary Plea.

{¶9} "III. Denial of Hearing."

{ΒΆ10} Counsel's potential assignments of error will be addressed out of order. In her third potential assignment of error, counsel contends that the court erred in denying appellant's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.