## Facts

- Indianapolis police responded to a report of an unruly patron at a bar and repeatedly asked Bryan G. Mosley to leave.
- After Mosley refused, officers told him he was under arrest and began handcuffing him.
- As one cuff was placed on Mosley’s right wrist, Mosley flailed his left arm; an officer believed Mosley was attempting to strike the other officer.
- After a brief struggle, Mosley was taken to the ground, where he continued to kick and flail until officers restrained his legs and completed handcuffing.
- The State charged Mosley with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.
- After a bench trial, Mosley was acquitted of trespass but convicted of resisting law enforcement and sentenced to 363 days of probation.
- On direct appeal, Mosley challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in a brief argument; the intermediate appellate court affirmed and stated counsel should have filed an Anders brief.
- The Indiana Supreme Court accepted review to address whether Anders procedures should be used in Indiana and what appointed counsel must do in direct criminal appeals as of right.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana should adopt the Anders procedure allowing appointed counsel to withdraw by filing an Anders brief in a direct criminal appeal deemed frivolous.
2. Whether counsel’s sparse appellate filing satisfied counsel’s obligation to provide advocative representation on a direct criminal appeal as of right.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court declined to adopt the Anders protocol for Indiana direct criminal appeals as of right.
- The court held appointed counsel must submit an advocative brief that complies with Indiana Appellate Rule 46 in every direct criminal appeal as of right.
- The court determined Mosley’s brief, though minimal, was sufficient under the court’s clarified standard.
- Mosley’s resisting-law-enforcement conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Anders sets a constitutionally acceptable procedure but does not require states to permit counsel to withdraw via Anders briefs in direct criminal appeals.
- In Indiana, appointed counsel in a direct criminal appeal as of right must file an advocative brief under Indiana Appellate Rule 46, attempting to present any arguably meritorious issues.
- Labeling an appeal “frivolous” through an Anders-type submission risks prejudicing judicial review and weakens the adversarial character of appellate proceedings.
- Concerns about truly frivolous appeals may be addressed through ethical limits on advocacy and existing appellate sanctions mechanisms rather than an Anders withdrawal regime.

## Conclusion

Indiana requires appointed counsel to file a Rule 46-compliant, advocative brief in every direct criminal appeal as of right and does not permit Anders-style withdrawal; applying that rule, the court affirmed Mosley’s conviction because counsel’s filing, though sparse, met the baseline duty of advocacy.


Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599 (Ind. 2009)