Anders brief in Vermont

2014Id. at 1060-61 ; see also Commonwealth v. Moffett, 418 N.E.2d 585, 591 (Mass. 1981) (holding that, where a client “insists on pursuing” an unsupported argument, rather than withdrawing or filing Anders brief appointed appellate counsel should “present the contention succinctly in the brief in a way that will do the least harm to the [client’s] cause”).

2014Id . at 1060-61; see also Commonwealth v. Moffett , 418 N.E.2d 585, 591 (Mass. 1981) (holding that, where a client “insists on pursuing” an unsupported argument, rather than withdrawing or filing Anders brief appointed appellate counsel should “present the contention succinctly in the brief in a way that will do the least harm to the [client’s] cause”).

2014The Defender General recognizes that other courts in these circumstances have ordered counsel to file an Anders brief, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2014The Defender General recognizes that other courts in these circumstances have ordered counsel to file an Anders brief, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2009See, e.g., Huguley v. State, 253 Ga. 709 , 324 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1985); McKenney, 568 P.2d at 1214 (holding that once counsel is appointed to represent an indigent client in a criminal appeal, no withdrawal will be permitted on the basis that the appeal lacks merit); Moffett, 418 N.E.2d at 591 (appointed counsel may not withdraw solely on ground that the appeal is frivolous); State v. Cigic, 138 N.H. 313 , 639 A.2d 251, 254 (1994). ¶ 62.

2009See, e.g., Huguley v. State, 324 S.E.2d 729, 731 (Ga. 1985); McKenney, 568 P.2d at 1214 (holding that once counsel is appointed to represent an indigent client in a criminal appeal, no withdrawal will be permitted on the basis that the appeal lacks merit); Moffett, 418 N.E.2d at 591 (appointed counsel may not withdraw solely on ground that the appeal is frivolous); State v. Cigic, 639 A.2d 251, 254 (N.H. 1994). ¶ 62.

2009See, e.g., Huguley v. State, 253 Ga. 709 , 324 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1985); McKenney, 568 P.2d at 1214 (holding that once counsel is appointed to represent an indigent client in a criminal appeal, no withdrawal will be permitted on the basis that the appeal lacks merit); Moffett, 418 N.E.2d at 591 (appointed counsel may not withdraw solely on ground that the appeal is frivolous); State v. Cigic, 138 N.H. 313 , 639 A.2d 251, 254 (1994). ¶ 62.

2009See, e.g., Huguley v. State, 324 S.E.2d 729, 731 (Ga. 1985); McKenney, 568 P.2d at 1214 (holding that once counsel is appointed to represent an indigent client in a criminal appeal, no withdrawal will be permitted on the basis that the appeal lacks merit); Moffett, 418 N.E.2d at 591 (appointed counsel may not withdraw solely on ground that the appeal is frivolous); State v. Cigic, 639 A.2d 251, 254 (N.H. 1994). ¶ 62.

2009“Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel.” Id. at 555; see also People v. Breaman, 939 P.2d 1348 , 1351 n.2 (Colo. 1997) (en banc) (citing Finley and concluding that appointed attorney who seeks to withdraw from representing defendant in post-conviction proceeding may inform court that he or she believes defendant’s claims are without merit and request permission to withdraw without filing Anders brief). ¶ 10.

2009See, e.g., Huguley v. State, 253 Ga. 709 , 324 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1985); McKenney, 568 P.2d at 1214 (holding that once counsel is appointed to represent an indigent client in a criminal appeal, no withdrawal will be permitted on the basis that the appeal lacks merit); Moffett, 418 N.E.2d at 591 (appointed counsel may not withdraw solely on ground that the appeal is frivolous); State v. Cigic, 138 N.H. 313 , 639 A.2d 251, 254 (1994). ¶ 62.

2009See, e.g., Huguley v. State, 324 S.E.2d 729, 731 (Ga. 1985); McKenney, 568 P.2d at 1214 (holding that once counsel is appointed to represent an indigent client in a criminal appeal, no withdrawal will be permitted on the basis that the appeal lacks merit); Moffett, 418 N.E.2d at 591 (appointed counsel may not withdraw solely on ground that the appeal is frivolous); State v. Cigic, 639 A.2d 251, 254 (N.H. 1994). ¶ 62.

2009This role reversal thus "forces either the court to undertake the role of the lawyer, or the lawyer to undertake the role of the court," and "does not well serve the administration of justice." Gale, 429 A.2d at 182 (Ferren, J., dissenting).

2009This role reversal thus “forces either the court to undertake the role of the lawyer, or the lawyer to undertake the role of the court,” and “does not well serve the administration of justice.” Gale, 429 A.2d at 182 (Ferren, J., dissenting).

2009“Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel.” Id. at 555; see also People v. Breaman, 939 P.2d 1348 , 1351 n.2 (Colo. 1997) (en banc) (citing Finley and concluding that appointed attorney who seeks to withdraw from representing defendant in post-conviction proceeding may inform court that he or she believes defendant’s claims are without merit and request permission to withdraw without filing Anders brief). ¶ 10.

2005Id., ¶ 25 (citing Tazruk v. State, 67 P.3d 687 , 693–94 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) (Coats, C.J., concurring); Johnson v. State, 364 S.E.2d 201, 201 (S.C. 1988)); cf. Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. Super.

2005Id., ¶ 25 (citing Tazruk v. State, 67 P.3d 687 , 693–94 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) (Coats, C.J., concurring); Johnson v. State, 364 S.E.2d 201, 201 (S.C. 1988)); cf. Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. Super.