Court Opinion

ID: 9528311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:39:42.859297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:41.990339
License: Public Domain

Concurring in Result
DeBruler, C.J.
No fair and constitutional method for screening out perfunctory appeals in criminal cases has as yet been devised. Any such method would necessarily involve a decision by someone that the proposed appeal being considered has no merit at all. The duty to make this decision properly attaches to the appellate tribunal rather than to the trial court, trial counsel, or appellate counsel. A decision, by an appellate tribunal, that a potential appeal has no merit, would be valid only if it were made after consideration of the occurrences at the trial level and arguments of legally trained personnel in support of both sides of the issue of whether or not a meritorious appeal exists. Anders v. California (1967), 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed 2d 493; Douglas v. California (1963), 372 U. S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814, 9 L. Ed. 2d 811; Draper v. Washington (1963), 372 U. S. 487, 83 S. Ct. 774, 9 L. Ed. 2d 899. It would require as much time and effort to effectuate a legally sound screening method as it does to operate our present system of freely taking appeals. It should also be noted that this is the first appeal taken by the appellants. This appeal is, therefore, not one in a series of post-appeal cases which could be characterized as harassing or frivolous.
*270Under these circumstances, I do not regret having participated in the extension of full judicial review to these indigent appellants by the Court.
Note. — Reported in 252 N. E. 2d 793.