Opinion ID: 1099623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether sayles's appellate counsel followed the correct procedure in filing his brief.

Text: ¶ 7. Sayles's appellate counsel states that he believes that no reversible error occurred at trial and that an appeal would be frivolous. Therefore, the procedure enunciated in Turner v. State, 818 So.2d 1186 (Miss.2001), [3] must be followed. ¶ 8. Counsel must show that the appellant was unlikely to prevail on appeal; file a brief indicating that he [has] scoured the record thoroughly and include in the brief anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; and advise the appellant of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. We then conduct our own independent review of the record. Id. at 1189. See also Overstreet v. State, 787 So.2d 1249, 1255 (Miss.2001). ¶ 9. Appellate counsel has asserted that Sayles is unlikely to prevail on appeal and that he has scoured the record thoroughly, and has listed seven issues [4] which he believed might arguably support an appeal, but he provided no explanation as to why these issues might arguably support an appeal. In fact, the entire brief consists of only two pages. ¶ 10. Appellate counsel states in the brief that he does hereby call to the attention of the Defendant/Appellant the only items in the record that might support an appeal. However, this statement does not in any way notify Sayles that he has the right to file a pro se, supplemental brief. [5] Therefore, we ordered that briefing be reopened for additional briefing pursuant to our decision in Turner. Sayles never filed a supplemental brief, but this prong of the test is satisfied by giving him the opportunity to so respond.