Court Opinion

ID: 9585771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:03:43.362573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:14.396519
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Certain privileges or rights are provided under Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (87 SC 1396, 18 LE2d 493), permitting counsel to file a motion to withdraw from the case if certain criteria are met. In announcing this rule the United States Supreme Court seems to indicate that appellate courts will exercise discretion in granting or denying this type motion. To adopt a blanket rule that these type motions will never be entertained or granted indicates that an appellate court has prejudged the merits of the motion and in effect is a refusal to exercise discretion. Preservation of Anders motions perhaps may be out-of-step with our State Supreme Court on this issue, but it is in sync with the United States Supreme Court. (Other rules within our two Georgia appellate courts vary, i.e. — publication or not of opinions).
Because I cannot agree with the proposal of forever shutting the *538door upon or non-recognition of Anders motions, I concur fully with the dissent of Presiding Judge Banke and respectfully also file this separate dissent.
Decided December 5, 1988.
Hobart M. Hind, District Attorney, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Judge Benham joins in this dissent.