State v. Ramirez

2011 UT App 35, 247 P.3d 418, 674 Utah Adv. Rep. 30, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 34, 2011 WL 246154
Court of Appeals of Utah·Decided January 27, 2011·No. 20090498-CA·Published

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Appellant Patrick Robert Ramirez appeals his conviction and sentence. Ramireg's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 LEd.2d 498 (1967), and State v. Clayton, 639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981). The brief "objectively demonstate[s] that the issues raised are frivolous." State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (per curiam); see also Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 877 (Utah 1990) (stating that an Anders brief must demonstrate that any "potentially meritorious" issues are actually frivolous). Based upon our independent examination of the matter, we determine that the appeal is, indeed, wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we af *419 firm the district court's decision and grant Appellant's counsel's request to withdraw.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Ramirez, 2011 UT App 35, 247 P.3d 418, 674 Utah Adv. Rep. 30, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 34, 2011 WL 246154 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

2011 UT App 35 (State v. Ramirez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Flores
855 P.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 1993)
Dunn v. Cook
791 P.2d 873 (Utah Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Clayton
639 P.2d 168 (Utah Supreme Court, 1981)