Legal Opinion

State v. Balfour

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 28, 1989No. C8801-30735, CA A49467 (Control) 3533, CA A49492 D8804-62802, CA A49798 72163A and B, CA A50805PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJoseph, C. J.

The issue in each of these cases is whether counsel for the appellant should be allowed to withdraw from representation because counsel has concluded that the appeal has no merit. In three of the cases, counsel was appointed to represent the indigent appellant and has moved, formally or informally, to withdraw; in one case, we have raised the issue on our own motion. In State v. Horine, 64 Or App 532, 669 P2d 797, rev den 296 Or 237 (1983), we held that, if appointed counsel makes a determination that there are no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal and notifies the court and the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. State v. HorineCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. BalfourOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. Lee v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  4. State v. DamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API