American Fork v. Large

               THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

                      AMERICAN FORK CITY,
                            Appellee,
                               v.
                   JERAMIE JOHN EDWIN LARGE,
                            Appellant.

                       Per Curiam Opinion
                         No. 20230670-CA
                     Filed November 15, 2024

       Fourth District Court, American Fork Department
                 The Honorable Roger Griffin
                         No. 221100962

         Hannah Leavitt-Howell and Jessica Hyde Holzer,
                   Attorneys for Appellant
         James Hansen and Cherylyn M. Egner, Attorneys
                         for Appellee

   Before JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN, RYAN D. TENNEY, and
                       JOHN D. LUTHY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1     Jeramie John Edwin Large appeals his convictions on two
misdemeanor charges. Appellate counsel filed a brief on appeal
under the principles of Anders v. California, 

 (1967),
and State v. Clayton, 

 (Utah 1981), asserting that there
are no non-frivolous issues to review. We accept the brief and
determine that the brief objectively demonstrates that there is no
non-frivolous issue on appeal.

¶2    In Anders, the Supreme Court clarified “the responsibilities
of appointed counsel who conclude that an indigent client’s
criminal appeal is without merit.” State v. Clayton, 

 (Utah 1981). Counsel’s “role as advocate requires that he
                       American Fork v. Large


support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability. Of course, if
counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious
examination of it, he should so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw.” Anders v. California, 

(1967). Counsel must, however, file “a brief referring to anything
in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” 

Additionally, a “copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the
[appellant] and time allowed [the appellant] to raise any points
that he chooses.” 

 In Utah, the brief must also certify that
counsel has provided a copy of the brief to the appellant and
should incorporate any additional points raised by the appellant.
Clayton, 

.

¶3      Here, appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that the
appeal is frivolous. However, appellate counsel has not provided
the brief to Large before filing—though not for lack of trying.
Although Large sought to appeal and is aware of his appeal, he
has not maintained contact with appellate counsel. Appellate
counsel has documented multiple attempts, without success, to
contact Large to provide the brief and obtain his input. Appellate
counsel represents that attempts to contact Large were made at
various physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers
over the course of multiple months. Under these circumstances,
where an appellant cannot be located after diligent efforts, the
requirement for providing a copy of the brief to an appellant is
excused. See, e.g., In re A.S., 

, 300 (Tx. App. 2022)
(relieving counsel of the requirement to provide a copy of the brief
to the appellant where an appellant was not found after diligent
efforts); State v. Mayfield, 

 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994)
(holding that delivery of a brief to an appellant is not required if
counsel has been unable to locate the appellant after diligent
efforts).

¶4     The brief objectively demonstrates that there is no non-frivolous issue. After an independent review of the record, we
determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, the



 20230670-CA                     2               

                   American Fork v. Large


convictions are affirmed, and appellate counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted.




20230670-CA                  3