State v. Haislip
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Haislip, 2016-Ohio-5667.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLINTON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, : : CASE NO. CA2015-11-021 : - vs - DECISION 9/6/2016 : DAYMON L. HAISLIP, Defendant-Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 2015-5167 Richard W. Moyer, Clinton County Prosecutor, 103 East Main Street, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for plaintiff-appellee Richard L. Federle, Jr., 820 Willow Bend Drive, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for defendantappellant Daymon L. Haislip, #A719851, Pickaway Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 209, Orient, Ohio 43146, defendant-appellant, pro se 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 Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel and the pro se brief of defendant-appellant, Daymon L. Haislip. Clinton CA2015-11-021 {¶2} Counsel for appellant has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "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} Appellant has filed a pro se brief, raising assignments of error pertaining to proximate cause, sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, the failure to follow Crim.R. 11 and violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. {¶4} 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. M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
