Legal Opinion

Nichols v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)

Decided July 23, 1997No. 04-97-00030-CRPublishedCited by 1,146 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Eddie Nichols filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order revoking his probation. Thereafter, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Nichols’ on appeal. Counsel filed an Anders brief on Nichols’ behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel did not, however, file a motion to withdraw as attorney. For the reasons that follow, we will order counsel to file a motion to withdraw.

Discussion

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees criminal appellants the right to counsel on a first appeal as of right. See Douglas v. California, 372…

3Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. High v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
  4. Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

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

4Cited by1,146 opinions

  1. Bray v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2005
  2. State ex rel. L.E.H.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2007
  3. Matter of A.L.H.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1998
  4. Smith v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2007
  5. Waylin Lee Wiedenfeld v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2014

1,141 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