Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Brewer
Citation: 2013 Ohio 309Docket: 11CA6
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; January 29, 2013; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Terri L. Brewer appeals her conviction for violating a protection order issued against her on November 12, 2009, which prohibited her from entering her mother Bonnie Lee Coppic's home. Despite the order, Brewer was found celebrating Christmas in Coppic's home on December 25, 2009. Following a bench trial, Brewer was convicted of this violation, while other charges were not addressed. Brewer’s appellate counsel, after reviewing the case, determined there were no meritorious claims for appeal and filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California. The court independently reviewed the record, concluded the appeal was wholly frivolous, granted the counsel's request to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court referenced the Anders procedure, which allows counsel to withdraw if the appeal is deemed without merit, and confirmed compliance with procedural requirements, including the provision of the Anders brief to Brewer. If nonfrivolous issues for appeal are identified, the appellant must be provided with counsel to address those issues. Brewer's counsel has met the requirements of Anders, and although Brewer did not file a pro se brief, her counsel raised a potential assignment of error regarding the trial court's denial of Brewer's Crim. R. 29 motion related to a charge of violating a protection order. The court found no error, stating that the state had sufficient evidence to show Brewer entered Coppic's home in violation of the protection order issued on November 12, 2009. The court explained that the review of a Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal is based on sufficiency of evidence, assessing whether the evidence, viewed favorably to the prosecution, could convince a rational trier of fact of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The sufficiency test is a question of law, not a weighing of evidence, leaving credibility and weight assessments to the trier of fact. Under R.C. 2919.27(A)(1), it is prohibited to recklessly violate protection orders. The state presented evidence, including photographs and testimony from Coppic, to support the allegation that Brewer violated the protection order by entering Coppic's residence on December 25, 2009, during a reconciliation attempt. Photographs presented as evidence indicated that Brewer was at Coppic’s residence on December 25, 2009, celebrating Christmas and allowing her children to open presents. This evidence supported the claim that Brewer violated a protection order issued on November 12, 2009. Brewer's motion for acquittal was denied, and her testimony, confirming her presence at Coppic’s house, was deemed irrelevant to the trial court's decision regarding the Crim. R. 29 motion. Upon reviewing the evidence favorably for the state, the court concluded that there was sufficient proof of all essential elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found Brewer's appeal to be frivolous, granted her counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Costs were assessed to Brewer, and a mandate was issued for the Meigs County Court to execute the judgment. The judgment entry serves as the final judgment, and the appeal period begins from the filing date with the clerk.