Cited by

Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground for reversal exists.

Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.

Counsel for Cox filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal of restitution, taken pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

Lomeli’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify any arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Brandon Terrell Miles timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of two counts of sexual assault, Class 2 felonies; two counts of sexual abuse, Class 5 felonies; kidnapping, a Class 2 felony; and aggravated assault, a Class 6 felony.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) Hernandez’s counsel filed a brief indicating that he searched the entire record, found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, and asked this court to review the record for fundamental error.

Zamora’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.

Perez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Esquerra’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has searched the record for error but has found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify any “arguable question of law.” Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error.

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

STATE v. BADERTSCHER Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

STATE v. BADERTSCHER Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 These appeals1 come to us under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Salinas’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify any arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Totress’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.