majority"> HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal by the State from a judgment granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus after Duran had been convicted of rape, — apparently a violent one.

The thrust of his case is that unconstitutionally he was denied a right to appeal because his court-appointed attorney did not perfect it.

The judgment of the lower court, based solely on the Anders cáse, 1 after ignoring it in favor of some anonymous, still unidentified Tenth Circuit opinion, is reversed, 2 since the record does not reflect facts that make the case dispositive here. Its controversiality and apparent unpopularity are noted for the record.

Duran, two-time loser, knowing, we think, about trials and tribulations and appeals, requested no one to file one for him, nor did he- himself file á timely appeal, but afterthought his predicament months later asking his counsel to help him, theh accused him 3 — of all things!: Incompetence.

We, and I am sure most of the Bar, cannot sháre petitioner’s distorted evaluation of the capabilities of a well-knoWn, respected young attorney, who, not asking to do so, represented defendant very competently, as the record quite clearly mirrors. Nor can we conclude that albeit the law may be a jealous mistress, she should not be required to prostitute herself in condo-nation of rapacity by technicality, imposed on her less fortunate, but perhaps more virtuous Sister-In-Law.

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

. As should be the Anders case, in my humble opinion.

.Whom be contacted for aid, success and succor a year after post-sentencing, post-all these new things and post-everything.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress