Cited by

Cleveland’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 and finding no arguable, non- frivolous question of law, Lopez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

Neely’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us he found no meritorious grounds for reversal and asking us to search the record for fundamental error.

Gibbs’ counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) certifying that, after diligently searching the record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 James Alan Melendez filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 Christian Adolfo Villa-Hernandez filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Castro’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us he found no meritorious grounds for reversal and asks us to search the record for fundamental error.

Counsel for Palmares filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) certifying that, after diligently searching the record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

STATE v. NETTROUR Decision of the Court P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Benjamin Christopher Nettrour timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his convictions for: manslaughter, a class 2 felony (Count 1); two counts of aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument, class 3 felonies (Counts 2 and 3); aggravated assault causing “temporary but substantial loss or impairment of any body organ or part,” a class 4 felony (Count 4); and two count

After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Navarette’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

¶15 On appeal, Melendez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising the court of appeals that there were no meritorious grounds for reversal.

Fullen'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 questions of law and asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

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

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

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 Shain Kyle Kee filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 Jesus Garcia Balderas filed this brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 Leon Robertson filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

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

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 Jason Allen Campbell filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 Natalie Betrue filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Counsel for Strover has filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this court that counsel has found no errors or arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental, reversible error.

F U R U Y A, Judge: ¶1 Clint Ray Piper appeals the superior court’s restitution order in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)