holding that appointed counsel must provide his client with copies of motion to withdraw and Anders brief, inform her of the right to file a pro se response and to review the appellate record, 2 take concrete measures to facilitate her access to the appellate record, and inform his client of the right to seek discretionary review pro se if the court of appeals determines the appeal is frivolous
How later courts described this case
- holding that appointed counsel must provide his client with copies of motion to withdraw and Anders brief, inform her of the right to file a pro se response and to review the appellate record, 2 take concrete measures to facilitate her access to the appellate record, and inform his client of the right to seek discretionary review pro se if the court of appeals determines the appeal is frivolous
- holding that appellate counsel who files Anders brief 2 must “take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what the client wishes”
- holding that appellate counsel who files Anders brief must “take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes”
- specifying in part that appointed counsel must notify the client regarding the motion and brief and provide the client a copy of each and setting forth other requirements that counsel must satisfy to assist the client in understanding her pro se rights and effectuating those rights and securing pro se access to the record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, P.J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
The principle of subsidiarity is the concept that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. It is the idea that problems are best solved where they occur in an organization. I believe that the courts of appeals understand better than we do what is necessary to ensure that appellants are able to review the appellate record. Despite the mistake in this case, it appears that each court has a process that effectively addresses the matter. Because I think that this Court imposes an unnecessary burden upon the courts of appeals, I join its judgment but not its opinion.