How have courts considered "not reasonably arguable" issues?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Rattanapan, G054176 (Cal. App. 2017):
To assist the court in its independent review, counsel suggested several issues she considered but ultimately determined were not reasonably arguable. (Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Page 5
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In what circumstances will the Court of Appeal consider an issue raised in a reply brief of an appellant before the reviewing court? (California, United States of America)
If the court's reasons were not presented at the serious offender hearing, would they have been considered relevant to the issues raised? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court have an independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court of Appeal have the power to overturn a conviction for sexual assault on the grounds that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to consider the issue of venue? (California, United States of America)
What are two "arguable issues" that the court will consider in its independent review? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant who failed to object to the trial court's decision to conduct voir dire in open court preserve the issue for appeal? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
In the absence of a decision by the California Supreme Court on the issue of consent for searches and seizures, what is the effect of the consent process in the context of this issue? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
