State v. R. Holguin, Jr., DA 19-0247

Appellant Robert Mathew Holguin, Jr. was represented on appeal by appointed counsel Caitlin Boland Aarab. Aarab identified a potentially meritorious appeal issue but Holguin refused to pursue it and instead wanted counsel to raise issues Aarab deemed frivolous.
Aarab moved to withdraw and submitted an Opening Brief advancing the meritorious issue she would pursue; the Court granted withdrawal and ordered the Opening Brief filed.
Holguin, proceeding pro se, objected to filing the Opening Brief; the Court sustained his objection, struck the Opening Brief, and allowed Holguin to proceed pro se or obtain new counsel (including possible ADD appointment).
Appellate Defender Chad Wright moved to withdraw ADD from representation, arguing under Jones v. Barnes that appointed counsel controls issue selection and need not present frivolous claims; Wright contended Aarab fulfilled her obligations by identifying the meritorious issue.
Holguin objected, relying on Anders v. California to argue that counsel seeking to withdraw must file an Anders brief pointing to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; he contended Aarab failed to do so.
The Supreme Court of Montana denied ADD’s motion to withdraw, concluding that withdrawal without an Opening or Anders brief would deprive the Court of the full, independent examination required; the Court ordered an Opening Brief or Anders brief by May 11, 2022.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Appellate Defender may withdraw without filing an Anders or Opening brief when no other brief will remain	ADD (Wright): counsel controls scope of issues and may decline frivolous issues; withdrawal appropriate because counsel identified the best issue and provided effective assistance	Holguin: Anders requires counsel who seeks to withdraw to file a brief pointing to any arguable issues; Aarab did not satisfy Anders	Denied: court ruled ADD may not withdraw without filing an Opening or Anders brief; ordered such a brief by a set date
Whether appointed appellate counsel must pursue a client’s preferred issues over counsel’s professional judgment	ADD: Jones v. Barnes allows counsel to select issues and decline frivolous client demands	Holguin: preserved trial objections indicate non-frivolous issues; counsel must support the appeal to the best of counsel’s ability per Anders	Court acknowledged counsel’s discretion under Jones but required compliance with Anders procedures before permitting withdrawal; counsel cannot simply withdraw without providing a brief for appellate review

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appointed counsel controls the selection and presentation of issues on appeal; not required to raise frivolous claims)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (if counsel finds an appeal frivolous, counsel must so advise the court and file a brief citing anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal)