Currie v. State

OPINION ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault with a firearm, wherein the punishment was assessed at ninety-nine (99) years by the court following the verdict of guilty.

Court-appointed counsel on appeal, who also represented appellant at the trial, has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that the appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous. The brief has been served upon appellant. No pro se brief has been filed. The brief of counsel does not advance any arguable grounds of error, but does contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. His brief is not the “conclusory statement” involved in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). While arguable grounds of error should be advanced by counsel for an indigent appellant as required by Anders, if there are any, Anders should not be interpreted as requiring appointed counsel to make arguments he would not consider worthy of inclusion in a brief for a paying client or to urge reversal if in fact he can find no merit in the appeal. See Nickols v. Gagnon, 454 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1971).