W.va. R. App. P. 3
Clerk's Notes on Rule 3
Rule 3(d)(2) is intended to complement Rule 10(c)(10) by requiring counsel to continue representation even where counsel does not have a good faith belief that an appeal is reasonable and warranted under the circumstances. The procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) is a constitutional minimum for court-appointed counsel in indigent criminal cases. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 276 (2000), "the Anders procedure is merely one method of satisfying the requirements of the Constitution for indigent criminal appeals. States may-and, we are confident, will-craft procedures that, in terms of policy, are superior to, or at least as good as, that in Anders." Numerous states have developed their own guidelines. The amendment to Rule 3(d)(2) is modeled after the policy established in Massachusetts, which provides that court-appointed counsel should not be permitted to withdraw solely on the ground that an appeal is frivolous or otherwise lacks merit. See Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201, 418 N.E.2d 585 (1981). The rationale behind Rule 3(d)(2) is that the appearance of counsel is not an implicit representation to the Court that counsel believes in the legal substantiality of the contentions raised; instead, it acknowledges that counsel serves an important function in ensuring that a client's arguments are fully advanced on appeal. The language of the rule relating to good faith derives in part from State v. McGill, 230 W.Va. 85, n. 7, 736 S.E.2d 85, n. 7 (2012). Counsel in such circumstances has an ethical obligation to provide the Court with relevant information from the record and relevant legal authorities. In extraordinary circumstances, if counsel is ethically compelled to disassociate from the contentions presented in the brief, counsel must preface the brief with a statement that the brief is filed pursuant to Rule 10(c)(10)(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.