In RE ORDER OF FIRST DIST. CT. OF APPEAL REGARDING BRIEF FILED IN FORRESTER v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• agreeing with district court that “appellate counsel’s original brief failed to meet the minimum requirements of Anders”
• \The Anders brief must evidence a complete and careful review of the record in order to support counsel's representation that the appeal is wholly frivolous.\
• “We approve the district court’s requiring supplemental briefs as being within the inherent powers of the court.”
• “If not satisfied that these requirements have been met, or if it needs further illumination or discussion of applicable law, a reviewing court may require supplemental briefs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).