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.
7 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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. KORTH AND STEELEgreen2 sentences2004ISSUE ONE [¶ 7.] Whether court-appointed counsel in an appeal of a termination of parental rights case is permitted to file a “Korth brief’ conceding a lack of arguably meritorious issues for appeal and submitting only those issues requested by the client? [¶ 8.] In State v. Korth, 2002 SD 101 , 650 N.W.2d 528 , this Court adopted an alternative briefing procedure for criminal appeals where court appointed counsel identifies no “arguably meritorious” issues for appeal. 2004ISSUE ONE [¶ 7.] Whether court-appointed counsel in an appeal of a termination of parental rights case is permitted to file a “Korth brief’ conceding a lack of arguably meritorious issues for appeal and submitting only those issues requested by the client? [¶ 8.] In State v. Korth, 2002 SD 101 , 650 N.W.2d 528 , this Court adopted an alternative briefing procedure for criminal appeals where court appointed counsel identifies no “arguably meritorious” issues for appeal. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Arabiegreen2 sentences2023The Court in Arabie noted that the language in Korth suggested counsel could assert arguably meritorious issues in Section A. However, the Court explained that such a view is not supportable because in Korth, the Court had adopted Oregon’s procedure and under that procedure it is “clear that counsel should not argue any issues in Section A of the brief.” 2003 S.D. 57 , ¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d at 254 . -6- #29817 ¶ 11. “[I]f there are issues in the case that counsel believes are meritorious,” counsel is to “abandon the Korth procedure and brief and argue those issues as in any other criminal appeal.” 2008Id. [¶ 5.] In light of the omissions in counsel’s Korth brief, we stay our further consideration of this case and order counsel for Marks to file an amended Korth brief within twenty days of the filing of this decision that includes a statement of significant motions in the case and their disposition, a statement that counsel discussed the case with Marks’ trial-level counsel and with Marks, and Marks’ signature on Section B of the brief. 3 The record shall be returned to Lawrence County to assist counsel in carrying out this order. | 1 | 4 |
Hughbanks v. Dooleygreen2 sentences2023As this Court noted in State v. Bousum, when there is a properly filed Korth brief and we identify an arguably meritorious issue, we would ordinarily require supplemental briefing on the issue. 2003 S.D. 58 , ¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d 257, 261 ; see Hughbanks v. Dooley, 2016 S.D. 76, ¶ 1 , 887 N.W.2d 319, 320 (noting that on direct appeal, this Court identified two arguably meritorious issues and directed supplemental briefing). 2023As this Court noted in State v. Bousum, when there is a properly filed Korth brief and we identify an arguably meritorious issue, we would ordinarily require supplemental briefing on the issue. 2003 S.D. 58 , ¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d 257, 261 ; see Hughbanks v. Dooley, 2016 S.D. 76, ¶ 1 , 887 N.W.2d 319, 320 (noting that on direct appeal, this Court identified two arguably meritorious issues and directed supplemental briefing). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bousum
green
2 sentences2023As this Court noted in State v. Bousum, when there is a properly filed Korth brief and we identify an arguably meritorious issue, we would ordinarily require supplemental briefing on the issue. 2003 S.D. 58 , ¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d 257, 261 ; see Hughbanks v. Dooley, 2016 S.D. 76, ¶ 1 , 887 N.W.2d 319, 320 (noting that on direct appeal, this Court identified two arguably meritorious issues and directed supplemental briefing). 2015In order to assist his client in a difficult circumstance, Schreiber admitted he was going beyond the Korth restrictions set forth in State v. Arabie, 2003 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 663 N.W.2d 250, 254-55 (per curiam), and State v. Bousum, 2003 S.D. 58 , ¶¶ 8-9, 663 N.W.2d 257, 261 , which prohibited counsel from briefing matters under Korth where he or she deems any of his or her client’s claims non-frivolous or arguably meritorious. | 2 | 2015–2023 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2004Accordingly, the State contends that father’s brief should be stricken and that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed. [¶ 9.] The Korth procedure was adopted by this Court to safeguard a criminal defendant’s right to appellate counsel as required by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2004Accordingly, the State contends that father’s brief should be stricken and that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed. [¶ 9.] The Korth procedure was adopted by this Court to safeguard a criminal defendant’s right to appellate counsel as required by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). | 1 | 2004–2004 |