Case ID: p3d_346/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

2015 UT App 56
    STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Manuel Lopez VILLEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 20140695-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    March 5, 2015.
    
      Criag L. Pankratz and David M. Corbett, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
    Sean D. Reyes and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
    Before Judges J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., STEPHEN L. ROTH and MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN.
   Decision

PER CURIAM:

11 Appellant Manuel Villeda appeals from 'the trial court's denial of his motion made pursuant to rule 4(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure and Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, 122 P.3d 628, to reinstate his appeal rights and allow him to appeal from the revocation and reinstatement of his probation. Villeda's appellate counsel filed a brief complying with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Clayton, 639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981). That 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). Based upon our review of counsel's brief and our 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.

T2 Affirmed.