Opinion ID: 1689459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether appellate counsel followed the correct procedure in filing a killingsworth brief.

Text: ¶ 14. Brown's appellate counsel felt that the appeal was largely frivolous and filed a one page, one issue brief. He invoked the Killingsworth doctrine and informed Brown that if he wanted to raise any other issues he had twenty-five (25) days to do so. Brown then filed a pro se brief. ¶ 15. In the Killingsworth case, appellate counsel attempted to withdraw and informed the Court that there were no meritorious assignments of error which could be raised on appeal. Killingsworth v. State, 490 So.2d 849 (Miss.1986). We did not allow counsel to withdraw, but required him to file a brief for the appellant. We further required counsel to certify that he had furnished the appellant with a copy of the brief and that he had informed the appellant that the appellant would be allowed 20 days from receipt of the notice to raise additional points. Id. at 852. ¶ 16. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit strongly criticized the Killingsworth procedure in Hughes v. Booker, 220 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000). In that case Hughes's counsel filed a Killingsworth brief and Hughes failed to file a supplemental brief. Id. The Fifth Circuit found that the Killingsworth procedure failed to provide sufficient safeguards to protect a defendant's right to appellate counsel. Id. at 352. ¶ 17. In response to Hughes, we have overruled the Killingsworth procedure and substituted the following procedure: Appellate counsel must: (1) determine that the defendant is unlikely to prevail on appeal; (2) file a brief indicating that he scoured the record thoroughly, and referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; and (3) advise client of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. The appellate court shall then make its own independent review of the record, in the manner followed in all other cases. Turner v. State, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2001 WL 624974, at  (Miss. Jun.7, 2001). See also Overstreet v. State, 787 So.2d 1249, 1255 (Miss.2001). ¶ 18. We find the procedure was generally followed in Brown's case. Appellate counsel did state in his opinion he was unlikely to succeed, assign one issue that might arguably support an appeal, and advise Brown of his right to file a supplemental brief. Brown did in fact file such brief assigning two additional issues. What is missing is any type of express statement that counsel scoured the record for anything that might support an appeal. Nevertheless, we have conducted an independent review of the record, and we cannot say there are any additional issues that might support an appeal.