▁but ▁found ▁a ▁potentially ▁mer itor ious ▁error ▁and ▁designated ▁a ▁different ▁att orney ▁to ▁represent ▁the ▁def endant , ▁not ing ▁pointed ly ▁that ▁“ an ▁Anders ▁brief ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁substitute ▁for ▁an ▁app ell ate ▁brief ▁argued ▁on ▁the ▁mer its .” ▁ ▁There ▁have ▁been ▁inc idents ▁where ▁cases ▁have ▁been ▁pressed ▁through ▁the ▁courts ▁after ▁the ▁att orney ▁was ▁granted ▁withdraw al ▁based ▁on ▁an ▁Anders ▁brief , ▁and ▁the ▁def endant ▁has ▁gone ▁on ▁to ▁prev ail . ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁of ▁Ohio ▁revers ed ▁a ▁conv iction ▁in ▁State ▁v . ▁Wil kin son , ▁and ▁in ▁State ▁v . ▁Ker by ▁the ▁court ▁determined ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁potential ▁issue ▁as ▁to ▁the ▁volunt ar iness ▁of ▁the ▁conf ession , ▁appointed ▁new ▁coun sel ▁to ▁argue ▁it , ▁and ▁ultimately ▁threw ▁out ▁the ▁def endant ' s ▁conv iction . ▁ ▁States ▁abandon ing ▁Anders ▁According ▁to ▁an ▁article ▁in ▁the ▁Florida ▁State ▁University ▁Law ▁Review , ▁some ▁states ▁have ▁abandoned ▁the ▁Anders ▁procedure ▁for ▁other ▁means ▁to ▁review ▁app ell ate ▁cases ▁where ▁the ▁att orney ▁claims ▁no ▁non - f riv ol ous ▁grounds . ▁ ▁For ▁example , ▁Id aho ▁does ▁not ▁permit ▁the ▁att orney ▁to ▁withdraw ▁from ▁the ▁case . ▁ ▁The ▁att orney , ▁though , ▁can ▁still ▁file ▁an ▁Anders ▁brief ▁( in ▁terms ▁of ▁arg uing ▁that ▁there ▁are ▁no ▁non - f riv ol ous ▁grounds ▁for ▁appeal ), ▁but ▁the ▁courts