Cited by

P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Melissa Rosellen Warax timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following her convictions for three counts of aggravated assault of a peace officer.

2 STATE v. MELLO Decision of the Court ¶4 In Mello's 2019 and 2021 cases, counsel avowed that they found no arguable questions of law and filed briefs pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Johnson’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.

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

C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Andrew Agustine Miguel timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction for misconduct involving weapons.

STATE v. THAMMAKHANTY 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)

Perez-Gutierrez’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, non-frivolous question of law.

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

Nix’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no meritorious grounds for reversal.

J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 Kevin Duane Hamlet appeals under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from convictions and sentences arising from the trafficking of stolen property and burglaries.

Williams’ 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.

Ortiz’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, Strover’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.

Mortimer’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, she found no arguable questions 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.

McLeod’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); advising the court that after searching the entire record, he is unable to identify any arguable question of law and requesting that we independently review the record for fundamental error.

Hunt’s counsel has advised us that in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel has diligently searched the record and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

STATE v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Clemons’ 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.

G A S S, Chief Judge: ¶1 Dustin Parker Curry filed this appeal based on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), of Randall Slaten’s conviction for knowing transportation or offer to sell or transfer a dangerous drug.

Daniels’ counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal.

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