State v. Villeda

Court of Appeals of Utah

State v. Villeda

2015 UT App 56, 346 P.3d 689, 2015 Utah App. LEXIS 57, 2015 WL 928584

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedMarch 5, 2015

Docket20140695-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2015 UT App 56 (State v. Villeda) 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. Villeda, 2015 UT App 56, 346 P.3d 689, 2015 Utah App. LEXIS 57, 2015 WL 928584 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision

PER CURIAM:

11 Appellant Manuel Villeda appeals from 'the trial court's denial of his motion made pursuant to rule 4(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure and Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, 122 P.3d 628, to reinstate his appeal rights and allow him to appeal from the revocation and reinstatement of his probation. Villeda's appellate counsel filed a brief complying with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Clayton, 639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981). That brief "objectively demonstrate(s] that the issues raised are frivolous." State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (per curiam); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶17, 13 P.3d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief all potential appellate issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that those issues are frivolous). Based upon our review of counsel's brief and our independent examination of the record, we determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous, and accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

T2 Affirmed.

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

Decision

PER CURIAM:

11 Appellant Manuel Villeda appeals from 'the trial court's denial of his motion made pursuant to rule 4(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure and Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, 122 P.3d 628, to reinstate his appeal rights and allow him to appeal from the revocation and reinstatement of his probation. Villeda's appellate counsel filed a brief complying with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Clayton, 639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981). That brief "objectively demonstrate(s] that the issues raised are frivolous." State v. Flores, 855 P.2d 258, 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (per curiam); see also State v. Wells, 2000 UT App 304, ¶17, 13 P.3d 1056 (per curiam) (stating that an Anders brief must brief all potential appellate issues identified by either the defendant or counsel and objectively demonstrate that those issues are frivolous). Based upon our review of counsel's brief and our independent examination of the record, we determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous, and accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

T2 Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2015 UT App 56, 346 P.3d 689, 2015 Utah App. LEXIS 57, 2015 WL 928584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-villeda-utahctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack