Opinion ID: 173048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anders Framework

Text: In Anders, the Supreme Court set out the following prophylactic procedure as a guide for criminal defense counsel and the appellate court when a defendant insists on taking an appeal that appears to be frivolous: [I]f counsel finds [the defendant’s] case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court–not counsel–then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal. Id. at 744; see Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 265, 269-76 (2000) (clarifying that Anders procedure is proper, but not exclusive, means to balance defendant’s right to appellate counsel with State’s interest in barring frivolous appeals). -2- Counsel followed this procedure by filing a brief discussing one potential ground for appeal and providing defendant a copy of the brief. 1 Defendant responded by submitting a demand for thirty billion dollars from the federal government, with cryptic references to bankruptcy law, truth-in-lending, and corporate criminal fraud. We are thus left to address the only issue specified by counsel, along with other matters considered in the course of our independent examination of the record.