In light of that liberty interest, at least one other court has required Anders-type safeguards in involuntary civil commitment proceedings. In re Juswick, 604 N.E.2d 528, 530 (Ill.App.Ct. 1992). And, as we indicated in State v. Westover, where we held that there is no right to counsel on appeal of a class B misdemeanor, the absence of the potential for loss of liberty weighs strongly against a right to counsel.
Her appointed attorney on appeal, the Legal Advocacy Service of the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission (Legal Advocacy), has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re Juswick, 237 Ill.App.3d 102 (1992) (the Anders procedure is applicable in an appeal from an involuntary-commitment order under the Mental Health Code). Legal Advocacy contends that this appeal is moot.
Thus, Illinois courts use the Anders procedure when reviewing motions to withdraw in appeals of involuntary commitment orders. In re Juswick, 237 Ill.App.3d 102, 104 (1992).
¶ 16 The Anders procedure pertaining to an appellate counsel's motion to withdraw has been found to be applicable in the context of an appeal from an involuntary commitment order. In re Juswick, 237 Ill. App. 3d 102, 104, 604 N.E.2d 528, 530 (1992) (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)). Here on appeal, respondent's counsel has filed a brief, wherein he asks this court to allow him to withdraw because the appeal has no merit. He also raises several potential issues for review.
as counsel on the ground that no reasonable argument can be made in support of this appeal. See, e.g., In re Juswick, 237 Ill. App. 3d 102, 104 (1992) (the procedure outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), is applicable to cases involving involuntary admissions to mental-health facilities). The respondent was given proper notice of the LAS's motion. He was granted an opportunity to file pro se briefs, memoranda, or other documents responding to the motion and supporting his appeal, but he did not take advantage of that opportunity.
filed with this court a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that no reasonable argument can be made in support of this appeal. See, e.g., In re Juswick, 237 Ill. App. 3d 102, 104 (1992) (the procedure outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), is applicable to cases involving involuntary admissions to mental-health facilities). The respondent was given proper notice of the LAS's motion and was granted an opportunity to file a pro se brief, memorandum, or other document responding to the motion and supporting his appeal. He has not filed any document. This court has examined the LAS's motion, the supporting memorandum that accompanied it, and the entire record on appeal. For the following reasons, this court grants the LAS's motion to withdraw and dismisses the appeal as moot.
¶ 13 The Anders procedure has been found to be applicable in the context of an appeal from an involuntary-commitment order. In re Juswick, 237 Ill. App. 3d 102, 104, 604 N.E.2d 528, 530 (1992). GAC has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and has attached to the motion a supporting memorandum pursuant to Anders.