Cited by

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Vanleer’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.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Wooten’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.

Neal’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).

T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).

State v. Wyninger Decision of the Court G E M M I L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Claude Wyninger, Jr.’s conviction of misconduct involving weapons, a Class 4 felony.

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) Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief indicating he searched the entire record, found no arguable question of law, and asked this court to review the record for fundamental error.

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

T H O M P S O N, Presiding Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).

Hamilton’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Bencomo’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.

Andi’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.

Hernandez’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

Cochran’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Daryl Lamone McGhee's termination of probation as unsuccessfully completed.

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

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Daryl Lamone McGhee's reinstatement on intensive probation.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Nels Leslie Madsen's convictions of possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a Class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony.

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

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

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

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Corrales’ 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.