Anders v. California  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous. The Supreme Court ruled that any such motion must be accompanied by a brief (commonly referred to as an "Anders" brief) outlining the case and any potential (albeit possibly frivolous) grounds for appeal, that the appellate court must independently review the case, and that a defendant must be allowed the right to appeal either "pro se" or by other counsel. The specific case involved a California defendant, Charlie Anders, who was convicted of felony possession of marijuana. Anders then requested that the California District Court of Appeal appoint appellate counsel for him, which was granted. Anders' counsel, after review of the case and discussion with Anders, determined that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed, and notified the court by letter that counsel would not file an appeal, and that Anders wanted to file an appeal on his own behalf. The entire notification consisted of a single letter from Anders' counsel to the court stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Anders then requested that another attorney be appointed. That request was denied, whereupon Anders filed a "pro se" appeal which was not successful. Six years later, Anders requested that his case be re-opened on the basis that he was denied the right to counsel. Both the California District Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court ruled against Anders, whereupon Anders appealed to the Supreme Court which granted certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court held in the specific case that Anders was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as the bare assertion of lack of grounds for appeal by his counsel was not enough to constitute adequate representation. The Court ruled, however, that an attorney could still move to withdraw on the basis that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal exist, but that certain steps had to be taken before such a motion could be granted. In order to file an "Anders" brief (also called a "no-merits brief"), the attorney must do the following:   The decision of whether or not to file an "Anders" brief is sometimes difficult for lawyers seeking to respect the ethical rules on frivolity while being zealous advocates for their clients. The Oregon Court of Appeals noted an anomaly with the "Anders" decision: if counsel raises "no" grounds for appeal, then the court must review the "entire" record to determine if a ground for appeal may exist, but if counsel raises "any" ground (even only one), then the court is required to review "only" that portion of the record pertaining to the ground raised by counsel and is not required to review any portion related to other grounds not raised.