State v. WICKWARD

2011 UT App 379, 264 P.3d 781, 694 Utah Adv. Rep. 62, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 382, 2011 WL 5316555

• Court: Court of Appeals of Utah
• Decided: November 3, 2011
• Docket: 20100950-CA
• Status: Published

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Levi Wickward appeals his convictions based upon guilty pleas of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, a second degree felony, and driving with a measurable controlled substance in the body, a class B misdemeanor. Wickward's counsel filed a brief complying with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1896, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Clayton, 639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981). The 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 Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 877 (Utah 1990) (stating that an Amders brief must demonstrate that any "potentially meritorious" issues are actually frivolous). Based upon 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.

2 Affirmed.