Sanchez v. State

Decision Date18 February 1969
Docket NumberNo. 5577,5577
Citation85 Nev. 95,450 P.2d 793
PartiesLouie SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

James D. Santini, Public Defender, and Robert G. Legakes, Deputy Public Defender, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Franklin, Jr., Dist. Atty., Addeliar D. Guy, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

ZENOFF, Justice.

Louie Sanchez appeals from a conviction of first-degree burglary. At five o'clock in the morning of November 3, 1967 he was apprehended in the basement of the Mint Hotel in Las Vegas while pushing a television set out of the hotel. Sanchez admitted the taking of the set from the hotel but claimed that a man had given him ten dollars and told him to bring his television set down from his hotel room. Sanchez had the keys to two Mint Hotel rooms on his person, one of which was to the room which contained the stolen television set.

1. Two photographic copies of lists containing the serial numbers of the television sets the hotel owned and the rooms which contained them were sought to be introduced at trial, but were objected to as not being the best evidence and not taken in the course of business. The purpose of the offer of the evidence was to show that the television set seized by Sanchez belonged in Room 1510 of the hotel. Counsel's objection to one of the two exhibits was sustained and therefore his assignment of error as to that exhibit is unfounded. The other exhibit was a copy in daily use and contained notations of sets removed for repairs by designated maintenance employees. It shows that on the date of the theft the stolen television set was owned by and assigned to a room of the hotel to which Sanchez was found to have a key and to which he admits entering to remove the set. The only assignment of error that bears discussion is whether the exhibits offered as business records are admissible within the purview of NRS 51.030(2). 1 Little consideration need be given to that assignment. NRS 51.060 permits admission of photographic copies of originals when made in the regular course of business as these were. 2

2. We welcome the opportunity to dispose of the question of the responsibility of counsel in what they consider to be a frivolous appeal. The public defender in this case acknowledged at the outset that he did not find any merit or reversible error in this appeal. Nevertheless he submitted a brief on all issues raised by the record which might arguably support an appeal as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See also United States v. Gregg, 393 F.2d 722 (4th Cir. 1968); Merkel v. Beto, 387 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1968); Smith v. United States, 384 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1967); State v. Elliott, 244 Or. 426, 418 P.2d 263 (Or.1966), vacated & remanded, Elliott v. Oregon, 387 U.S. 571, 87 S.Ct. 2070, 18 L.Ed.2d 967 (1967), reaff'd, State v. Elliott, 442 P.2d 609 (Or.1968); People v. Feggans, 67 A.C. 447, 62 Cal.Rptr. 419, 432 P.2d 21 (1967); Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (Pa.1968).

We will remove some of the circuitous requirements of Anders, supra, in order that the litigants, counsel and this court can expeditiously get to the point of each case with a minimum of procedural steps and still afford the maximum of constitutional protection to the defendant. Appointed counsel for a defendant who demands an appeal need not file a request to withdraw if he feels there is no reversible error to argue on appeal. If after conscientious examination of the record counsel believes that the appeal is frivolous, then he must file the opening brief on the merits of all arguable issues raised by the record together with an acknowledgment that he does not believe there is merit to the appeal. Thereafter the state may either answer in normal course or move to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, but a motion to dismiss must be accompanied with points and authorities in support of the claim of frivolity.

Some cautions should be noted. Neither the district court nor counsel may decide whether the appeal is frivolous. Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L.Ed.2d 892 (1963); Eskridge v. Washington etc., 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 (1958). Only this court can do that. NRS 177.205(1) allows dismissal if the appeal is irregular in any substantial particular. An appeal which presents only frivolous assertions of error is substantially irregular. People v. Sumner, 262 A.C.A. 413, 69 Cal.Rptr. 15 (1968). We rely on that authority alone without further discussion encompassing our inherent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Andrew B., In re, G017193
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1995
    ......  Under Wende procedures that have long been mainstays of the Court of Appeal throughout the state, we dispensed with full briefing on behalf of the other parties (the Orange County Social Services ... (Sanchez v. State (1969) 85 Nev. 95 [450 P.2d 793, 794].) Similarly, Nevada recognizes that "[n]either the ......
  • Com. v. Moffett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 24, 1981
    ...less time and energy will be spent directly reviewing the case on the merits. See State v. McKenney, supra; Sanchez v. State, 85 Nev. 95, 97, 450 P.2d 793 (1969); Commonwealth v. Seville, 231 Pa.Super. 120, 123, 331 A.2d 807 (1974) (Cercone, J., dissenting). If the appeal is not frivolous, ......
  • Hymon v. Williams, 2:09-cv-1124-RLH-LRL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 15, 2011
    ...court error as to the habitual criminal enhancement, judicial misconduct, inadequate Faretta canvass, and also presented certain Anders/Sanchez arguments.3 Exhibit 86. The conviction was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court on May 26, 2005. Exhibit 96; See Hymon v. State, 121 Nev. 200, 111 ......
  • Rodriguez v. State, 35300.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • October 17, 2001
    ...Bollinger v. State, 111 Nev. 1110, 1115, 901 P.2d 671, 674 (1995). 17. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 18. 85 Nev. 95, 450 P.2d 793 (1969). 19. Both Rodriguez and the State failed to note in their respective briefs that this court has expressly overruled the mandate of S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT