Legal Opinion
State v. KORTH AND STEELE
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided August 14, 2002No. NonePublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMUNDSON, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Motions to withdraw were filed by court appointed attorneys based on the belief that their clients’ appeals were frivolous. This Court ordered the attorneys to brief the issue of whether an adequate Anders brief is a necessary condition to allow counsel to withdraw.1
FACTS
[¶ 2.] The State and Steele’s appointed counsel both argue that the Anders procedure, whereby a motion to withdraw and a brief stating potential appealable issues, is appropriate, and should remain in place. Korth’s appointed counsel, however, proposes that this Court no longer consider Anders-type…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- State v. ArabieSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- People Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of Social ServicesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. StumpWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- People Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of Social Services Ex Rel. A.D.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. BousumSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.