M.E.C. v. State

1 Citing case

  1. In re D.A.S

    973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998)   Cited 272 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Anders procedures apply to juvenile matters

    Of the thirteen states that have considered the issue, all currently apply Anders to juvenile appeals. See, e.g., M.E.C. v. State, 611 So.2d 1201, 1201 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237 (App. 1989); Gilliam v. State, 305 Ark. 438, 808 S.W.2d 738, 740 (1991); D.L.G. v. State, 701 So.2d 379, 380 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1997); T.L. v. State, 169 Ga. App. 784, 315 S.E.2d 296, 296 (Ga.Ct.App. 1984); People v. Moore, 32 Ill. App.3d 367, 336 N.E.2d 599, 599 (1975); In re Smith, 597 So.2d 101, 102 (La.Ct.App. 1992); Hans v. State, 283 Mont. 379, 942 P.2d 674, 681 (1997); In re Jarvis P., 240 A.D.2d 750, 660 N.Y.S.2d 990, 991 (1997); In re Unrue, 113 Ohio App.3d 844, 682 N.E.2d 686, 687 (1996); Commonwealth v. Heron, 449 Pa. Super. 684, 674 A.2d 1138, 1139 (1996); In re Stacey R., 311 S.C. 312, 428 S.E.2d 869, 869 (1993); State v. Hairston, 133 Wn.2d 534, 946 P.2d 397, 400 (1997). Although juvenile cases are classified as civil proceedings, they are quasi-criminal in nature.