Cited by

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

¶3 On direct appeal, Kashkool’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing he could find no colorable argument to raise.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Woods’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.

Maldonado’s counsel filed a brief per 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.

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

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

Counsel for Martin has filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this court that counsel has found no “error worthy of bringing forth an [a]ppeal” and asking us to search the record for fundamental error.

C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 Counsel for David Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed an opening brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

F U R U Y A, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Villa’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.

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

J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

STATE v. PEREZ Decision of the Court P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 David Andrew Perez timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following his conviction for criminal trespass in the first degree.

Mendoza, through counsel, filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, there was no arguable question of law.

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

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

His attorney in the second appeal filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing that she found no meritorious issue to raise, and Mora did not file a supplemental brief despite being given leave to do so.

Counsel for Hedgecock 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.

Counsel for Buehler 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.

C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Counsel for Appellant 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.

After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Gates’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.