Legal Opinion
Meza v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided September 20, 2006No. PD-1181-05PublishedCited by 605 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · PricePrice, J.
We granted discretionary review on our own motion 1 in this cause to review the implicit holding of the Tenth Court of Appeals that it had no authority to grant a motion by a court-appointed appellate attorney in a criminal appeal to withdraw from representation of his client on the basis that the attorney, after due diligence, could not find any non-frivolous issues to raise, and therefore had an ethical duty to refrain from filing a frivolous appeal. 2 In an earlier opinion, Sowels v. State, the Tenth Court of Appeals had held that it had no such authority. 3 So far as we are aware,…
3Cases cited17 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Bledsoe v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ex Parte OwensCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by605 opinions
- In Re SchulmanCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2008
- Kelly, SylvesterCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2014
- in the Interest of P.M., a ChildTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- Moran v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007
- Villanueva v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2006
600 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.