Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A grand jury indicted Javier Sanchez for evading arrest or detention, with punishment enhanced by prior convictions. A jury found him guilty, found both enhancement allegations true, and assessed a five-year prison sentence.
Sanchez’s appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief asserting that counsel had found no error in the guilt-innocence phase. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and identified a possible challenge concerning statements Sanchez made during a recorded interaction with an officer after his arrest. Sanchez had objected that the statements resulted from custodial interrogation conducted without Miranda warnings, but the trial court overruled the objection and granted a running objection. The Anders brief did not address that interaction or ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The court held only that a challenge to the admission of Sanchez’s statements was an arguable issue that was not wholly frivolous and therefore deserved adversarial briefing. It expressly declined to decide whether the challenge ultimately had merit.
Because at least one arguable issue existed, the court concluded that the appeal could not continue under Anders. It granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, abated the appeal, and remanded for the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel, who may brief the identified Miranda issue and any other nonfrivolous issue found in the record.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record for arguable grounds of appeal.
- A preserved objection to post-arrest statements allegedly obtained through unwarned custodial interrogation presented a nonfrivolous issue requiring briefing.
- The order did not decide whether Sanchez’s statements were inadmissible or whether his conviction should be reversed.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that an Anders brief must account for potentially appealable rulings disclosed by the record. When the reviewing court identifies even one arguable issue, it must provide the defendant with new counsel and ordinary merits briefing rather than decide the issue within the Anders process.