Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Floresgreen2 sentences2015That brief "objectively demonstrate(s] that the issues raised are frivolous." State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (per curiam); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶17 , 13 P.3d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief all potential appellate issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that those issues are frivolous). 2015That brief “objectively demonstrate[s] that the issues raised are frivolous.” State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (per curiam); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶ 7 , 13 P.3d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief all potential issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that the issues presented in the appeal are frivolous). | 5 | 5 |
Anders v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017The United States Supreme Court established in Anders v. California that appointed defense counsel must support’an indigent client's appeal to the best of her ability to protect her client's constitutional rights to fair process and substantial equality. 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2017The United States Supreme Court established in Anders v. California that appointed defense counsel must support’an indigent client's appeal to the best of her ability to protect her client's constitutional rights to fair process and substantial equality. 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2015"An Anders brief is in one sense an abbreviated form of a regular brief, but it is different from a regular brief in that it must demonstrate that the potentially meritorious issues are frivolous." Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 877 (Utah 1990); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶7 , 13 P.8d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief potential issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that the issues presented are frivolous). 2015That brief "objectively demonstrate(s] that the issues raised are frivolous." State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (per curiam); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶17 , 13 P.3d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief all potential appellate issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that those issues are frivolous). | 4 | 5 |
Dunn v. Cookgreen2 sentences2015"An Anders brief is in one sense an abbreviated form of a regular brief, but it is different from a regular brief in that it must demonstrate that the potentially meritorious issues are frivolous." Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 877 (Utah 1990); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶7 , 13 P.8d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief potential issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that the issues presented are frivolous). 2011The brief "objectively demonstate[s] that the issues raised are frivolous." State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (per curiam); see also Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 877 (Utah 1990) (stating that an Anders brief must demonstrate that any "potentially meritorious" issues are actually frivolous). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Claytongreen2 sentences2023Rather, the court reviews the brief to ensure that the indigent party received constitutionally adequate representation on appeal and to determine “whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” See id. at 439 . ¶41 We adopted the Anders framework in 1981, see Clayton, 639 P.2d at 169–70, and have since incorporated it into our appellate rules, see UTAH R. 2023Rather, the court reviews the brief to ensure that the indigent party received constitutionally adequate representation on appeal and to determine “whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” See id. at 439 . ¶41 We adopted the Anders framework in 1981, see Clayton, 639 P.2d at 169–70, and have since incorporated it into our appellate rules, see UTAH R. | 2 | 6 |
Penson v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2000See id. at 81 , 109 S.Ct. 346 . 16 The United States Supreme Court stated in Penson that an Anders brief serves "the valuable purpose of assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation." Id. at 81-82 , 109 S.Ct. 346 . 2000See id. at 81 , 109 S.Ct. 346 . 16 The United States Supreme Court stated in Penson that an Anders brief serves "the valuable purpose of assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation." Id. at 81-82 , 109 S.Ct. 346 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Balfourgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Balfour, 2018 UT App 79 , ¶ 20 n.5, 418 P.3d 79 (declining to consider Anders issues raised in a hybrid brief on the ground that the Anders framework did not apply); Butterfield v. Cook, 817 P.2d 333, 341 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (declining to expand Anders to include cases which have both frivolous and nonfrivolous issues). 2023See State v. Balfour, 2018 UT App 79 , ¶ 20 n.5, 418 P.3d 79 (declining to consider Anders issues raised in a hybrid brief on the ground that the Anders framework did not apply); Butterfield v. Cook, 817 P.2d 333, 341 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (declining to expand Anders to include cases which have both frivolous and nonfrivolous issues). | 1 | 1 |
Butterfield v. Cookgreen1 sentence2023See State v. Balfour, 2018 UT App 79 , ¶ 20 n.5, 418 P.3d 79 (declining to consider Anders issues raised in a hybrid brief on the ground that the Anders framework did not apply); Butterfield v. Cook, 817 P.2d 333, 341 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (declining to expand Anders to include cases which have both frivolous and nonfrivolous issues). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2001See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2001See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Herreragreen2 sentences2001See State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64, ¶¶ 31-33 , 993 P.2d 854 . 2001See State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64, ¶¶ 31-33 , 993 P.2d 854 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gomezred2 sentences2023But see State v. Gomez, 2015 UT App 283, ¶ 2 , 363 P.3d 552 (per curiam) (reaching arguments raised in a hybrid-Anders brief and determining that the Anders issues were “wholly frivolous”). 14 2023But see State v. Gomez, 2015 UT App 283, ¶ 2 , 363 P.3d 552 (per curiam) (reaching arguments raised in a hybrid-Anders brief and determining that the Anders issues were “wholly frivolous”). 14 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
green
2 sentences2023Because the impetus for filing an Anders brief is to receive the court’s permission to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, an Anders brief “is not expected to serve as a substitute for an advocate’s brief on the merits.” See McCoy v. Wis. Ct. App., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429 , 439 n.13 (1988). 2023Rather, the court reviews the brief to ensure that the indigent party received constitutionally adequate representation on appeal and to determine “whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” See id. at 439 . ¶41 We adopted the Anders framework in 1981, see Clayton, 639 P.2d at 169–70, and have since incorporated it into our appellate rules, see UTAH R. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Shook
neutral
1 sentence2015Based upon our State v. Shook independent examination of the record, we determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous, and accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ¶2 Affirmed. 20130594-CA 2 2015 UT App 16 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Butterfield
green
1 sentence1991State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Casarez
green
1 sentence1983The sixth point recited in counsel’s Anders brief states that the order of commitment (issued at the sentencing hearing two weeks after the trial) “makes no mention that Defendant had any access to the presentence report” and suggests that our decision in State v. Casarez, Utah, 656 P.2d 1005 (1982), may therefore require a remand for resentencing after the defendant has had an opportunity to review that report. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Gaxiola
green
1 sentence1978State v. Gaxiola, 550 P.2d 1298 (1976). . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.