▁of ▁a ▁criminal ▁case ▁because ▁of ▁his ▁belief ▁that ▁any ▁grounds ▁for ▁appeal ▁were ▁f riv ol ous . ▁ ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ruled ▁that ▁any ▁such ▁motion ▁must ▁be ▁accompanied ▁by ▁a ▁brief ▁( comm only ▁referred ▁to ▁as ▁an ▁Anders ▁brief ) ▁out lin ing ▁the ▁case ▁and ▁any ▁potential ▁( al beit ▁possibly ▁f riv ol ous ) ▁grounds ▁for ▁appeal , ▁that ▁the ▁app ell ate ▁court ▁must ▁independently ▁review ▁the ▁case , ▁and ▁that ▁a ▁def endant ▁must ▁be ▁allowed ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁appeal ▁either ▁pro ▁se ▁or ▁by ▁other ▁coun sel . ▁ ▁Background ▁ ▁The ▁specific ▁case ▁involved ▁a ▁California ▁def endant , ▁Charlie ▁Anders , ▁who ▁was ▁conv icted ▁of ▁fel ony ▁possession ▁of ▁mar iju ana . ▁ ▁Anders ▁then ▁requested ▁that ▁the ▁California ▁District ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁appoint ▁app ell ate ▁coun sel ▁for ▁him , ▁which ▁was ▁granted . ▁ ▁Anders ' ▁coun sel , ▁after ▁review ▁of ▁the ▁case ▁and ▁discussion ▁with ▁Anders , ▁determined ▁that ▁no ▁non - f riv ol ous ▁grounds ▁for ▁appeal ▁existed , ▁and ▁not ified ▁the ▁court ▁by ▁letter ▁that ▁coun sel ▁would ▁not ▁file ▁an ▁appeal , ▁and ▁that ▁Anders ▁wanted ▁to ▁file ▁an ▁appeal ▁on ▁his ▁own ▁beh alf . ▁The ▁entire ▁notification ▁consisted ▁of ▁a ▁single ▁letter ▁from ▁Anders ' ▁coun sel ▁to ▁the ▁court ▁stating ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁mer it ▁to ▁the ▁appeal . ▁Anders ▁then ▁requested ▁that ▁another ▁att orney ▁be ▁appointed . ▁That ▁request ▁was ▁denied