Legal Opinion
In Re Schulman
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided April 30, 2008No. AP-75,911PublishedCited by 4,263 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · CochranCochran, J.
Mr. David Schulman, the appointed appellate attorney for Marlyn Solanas, filed an application for a writ of mandamus with this Court claiming that the Seventh Court of Appeals violated a ministerial duty when it ordered him to file a motion to withdraw as counsel along with his Anders 1 brief. That brief concludes, as all Anders briefs conclude, that his client’s appeal is “frivolous,” but Mr. Schulman argues that, while counsel for the defense may file an Anders brief, he is not obligated to simultaneously file a motion to withdraw from representation. This is backwards. Under both…
3Cases cited16 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- High v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
- Bledsoe v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by4,263 opinions
- Kelly, SylvesterCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2014
- in the Interest of P.M., a ChildTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- Ferguson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
- in the Interest of G.P., a Child, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2016
- Banks v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2009
4,258 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.