State v. Ramirez

Court of Appeals of Utah

State v. Ramirez

2011 UT App 35, 247 P.3d 418, 674 Utah Adv. Rep. 30, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 34, 2011 WL 246154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedJanuary 27, 2011

Docket20090498-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 35 (State v. Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 35, 247 P.3d 418, 674 Utah Adv. Rep. 30, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 34, 2011 WL 246154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramirez-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack