54 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 23 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1green2 sentences2021The Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the Anders brief is both “to provide the appellate courts with a basis for determining whether appointed counsel have fully performed their duty to support their clients’ appeal to the best of their ability” and to aid the court in its “critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 439 (1988). 2020The Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the Anders brief is both “to provide the appellate courts with a basis for determining whether appointed counsel have fully performed their duty to support their clients’ appeal to the best of their ability” and to aid the court in its “critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 439 (1988). | 2 | 4 |
Penson v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2016As this court recently explained, filing an Anders brief is permissible only when an attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal, and after having identified all of the potential adverse rulings, the attorney determines that an appeal from those rulings would be “frivolous.” Her v. State, 2015 Ark. 91 , 457 S.W.3d 659 (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988)). 2016As this court recently explained, filing an Anders brief is permissible only when an attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal, and after having identified all of the potential adverse rulings, the attorney determines that an appeal from those rulings would be “frivolous.” Her v. State, 2015 Ark. 91 , 457 S.W.3d 659 (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988)). | 1 | 4 |
Smith v. Robbinsgreen2 sentences2001(Emphasis added.) In Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), the Supreme Court’s most recent discussion regarding the procedures for withdrawing from a case that has no meritorious points to be raised on appeal, the Court held that the Anders framework is only one method of ensuring that indigents are afforded their Constitutional rights, and the states may craft procedures that are superior to, or at least as good as, the procedure outlined in Anders 528 U.S. at 276 . 2001(Emphasis added.) In Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), the Supreme Court’s most recent discussion regarding the procedures for withdrawing from a case that has no meritorious points to be raised on appeal, the Court held that the Anders framework is only one method of ensuring that indigents are afforded their Constitutional rights, and the states may craft procedures that are superior to, or at least as good as, the procedure outlined in Anders 528 U.S. at 276 . | 1 | 3 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See id. | 1 | 1 |
Lacy v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388 , 377 S.W.3d 227 . 2013See Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388 , 377 S.W.3d 227 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sartin v. State
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Sartin, 2010 Ark. 16, at 8 , 362 S.W.3d at 882 . | 17 | 2014–2025 |
Robert Jeffries v. State of Arkansas
neutral
2 sentences2026Id. 2026Id. | 4 | 2025–2026 |
Leonard C. Stephenson v. State of Akransas
neutral
2 sentences2026Stephenson v. State, 2023 Ark. 2026Stephenson v. State, 2023 Ark. | 4 | 2024–2026 |
Joshua Michael Miller v. State of Arkansas
neutral
2 sentences2026Miller v. State, 2021 Ark. 2024Miller v. State, 2021 Ark. | 3 | 2023–2026 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2021Rule 4-3(k)(1) requires that the argument section of a no-merit brief contain “a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions, 1 386 U.S. 738 , (1967). and requests . . . with an explanation as to why each . . . is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” 2 The requirement for abstracting and briefing every adverse ruling ensures that the due-process concerns in Anders are met and prevents the unnecessary risk of a deficient Anders brief resulting in an incorrect decision on counsel’s motion to withdraw. 3 Pursuant to Anders, we are required 2021Id. | 3 | 2019–2021 |
Kandace Thompson v. State of Arkansas
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 2–3, 697 S.W.3d at 725 . 2025Id. at 2–3, 697 S.W.3d at 725 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Michael Hull v. State of Arkansas
neutral
2 sentences2020Id. 2020Id. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Kou Her v. State
green
2 sentences2016As this court recently explained, filing an Anders brief is permissible only when an attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal, and after having identified all of the potential adverse rulings, the attorney determines that an appeal from those rulings would be “frivolous.” Her v. State, 2015 Ark. 91 , 457 S.W.3d 659 (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988)). 2016As this court recently explained, filing an Anders brief is permissible only when an attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal, and after having identified all of the potential adverse rulings, the attorney determines that an appeal from those rulings would be “frivolous.” Her v. State, 2015 Ark. 91 , 457 S.W.3d 659 (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988)). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Soto v. State
neutral
2 sentences2014Further, we emphasize that, at a minimum, counsel “should both acquaint himself with the framework found in Anders for no-merit criminal briefs and include the Anders citation in his brief.” Soto v. State, 2013 Ark. 2014Further, we emphasize that, at a minimum, counsel “should both acquaint himself with the framework found in Anders for no-merit criminal briefs and include the Anders citation in his brief.” Soto v. State, 2013 Ark. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Kejuan J. Thompson v. State of Arkansas
neutral
1 sentence2026Thompson v. State, 2025 Ark. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mason v. State
green
2 sentences2020See Mason I, supra 3 (affirming direct appeal when counsel filed an Anders brief and only pro se point raised involved Mason’s right to testify); Mason v. State, 2013 Ark. 492 , 430 S.W.3d 759 (affirming Rule 37 appeal when only issues raised were counsel’s failure to move for directed verdict; opening the door to prejudicial testimony; and failure to investigate). 2020See Mason I, supra 3 (affirming direct appeal when counsel filed an Anders brief and only pro se point raised involved Mason’s right to testify); Mason v. State, 2013 Ark. 492 , 430 S.W.3d 759 (affirming Rule 37 appeal when only issues raised were counsel’s failure to move for directed verdict; opening the door to prejudicial testimony; and failure to investigate). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pulaski Choice, L.L.C. v. 2735 Villa Creek, L.P.
green
1 sentence2019Sartin, 2010 Ark. 16, at 8 , 362 S.W.3d at 882 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lenderman v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 8 , 362 S.W.3d at 882 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
James v. State
green
2 sentences2015We stated that “[c]ounsel identifies a number of rulings adverse to appellant that he arranges into eight groups for discussion and explains why none provide a meritorious ground for reversal.” Id. at 3, 372 S.W.3d at 804 . 2015We stated that “[c]oun-sel identifies a number of rulings adverse to appellant that he arranges into eight groups for discussion and explains why none provide a meritorious ground for reversal.” Id. at 3, 372 S.W.3d at 804 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2015Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2), and the State shall be afforded the opportunity to file a responsive brief. 2 Cite as 2015 Ark. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Her v. State
neutral
1 sentence2015If Burnett chooses to again file an Anders brief, his brief will be forwarded by our clerk to Her so that, within thirty days, Her again will 3 Cite as 2015 Ark. 278 have the opportunity to raise any points he so chooses in accordance with Ark. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2014Williams v. State, 2010 Ark. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Campbell v. State
green
1 sentence2004Should there be any doubt or confusion about what an Anders brief and review entails, for both appellate counsel and this court, see Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Campbell v. State
green
1 sentence2004App. 277 , 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001) (Supp. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Tucker v. State
green
1 sentence2001Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.