Automated Summary
Key Facts
Appellant Yudon Allen was found guilty by a jury of the felony offense of tampering with physical evidence with intent to impair a human corpse. Allen pled true to an enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed punishment at seventy-five years confinement in a penitentiary. Allen's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous. The Court of Appeals reviewed the entire record and determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous, lacking any basis in law or fact. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.
Issues
Whether the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, lacking any basis in law or fact, warranting dismissal of the appeal and granting counsel's motion to withdraw from representation.
Holdings
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and granted the appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw from representation. After a full examination of the appellate record, the court determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous as it lacked any basis in law or fact. The court concluded that the appointed counsel had performed the required duties and that the Anders brief evidenced a professional evaluation of the record for error.
Remedies
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the appeal wholly frivolous. Additionally, the court granted the appellant's appointed counsel's motion to withdraw from representation and filed an Anders brief in support of the motion.
Legal Principles
The court applied the Anders standard from Anders v. California, which requires appellate courts to conduct a full examination of all proceedings and decide whether an appeal is wholly frivolous or without merit. An appeal is considered wholly frivolous when it lacks any basis in law or fact. The court found Allen's appeal to be wholly frivolous and affirmed the trial court's judgment while granting counsel's motion to withdraw.
Precedent Name
- In re Schulman
- Stafford v. State
- Bledsoe v. State
- High v. State
- Anders v. California
- Kelly v. State
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals
- Penson v. Ohio
Judge Name
- Matt Johnson
- Justice Harris
- Justice Smith
Passage Text
- In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, 'after a full examination of all the proceedings, decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.' Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400
- Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Allen is granted.
- An appeal is 'wholly frivolous' or 'without merit' when it 'lacks any basis in law or fact.' McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous.