Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Baker v. Margaret L.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 31, 2001No. G026908Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

RYLAARSDAM, J,, Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment in this case. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion an appellate court must conduct an independent review of the record in an appeal from a conservatorship proceeding under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.; all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code) if appointed counsel files a brief failing to raise any issues.

Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. People v. WendeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. In Re Sade C.California Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Conservatorship of RouletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API