The Supreme Court ruled that any such motion must be accompanied by a brief (commonly referred to as an Anders brief) outlining the case and any potential (albeit possibly frivolous) grounds for appeal, that the appellate court must independently review the case, and that a defendant must be allowed the right to appeal either pro se or by other counsel.

The specific case involved a California defendant, Charlie Anders, who was convicted of felony possession of marijuana.

The entire notification consisted of a single letter from Anders' counsel to the court stating that there was no merit to the appeal.

The Court ruled, however, that an attorney could still move to withdraw on the basis that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal exist, but that certain steps had to be taken before such a motion could be granted.

[2] New Hampshire also does not permit withdrawal, but specifically exempts a potentially frivolous appeal from being subject to attorney sanctions.