TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover Page
2. Table of Authorities
3. Statement of Jurisdiction
4. Issues Presented for Review
5. Statement of the Case
6. Statement of Facts
7. Standard of Review
8. Argument
9. Conclusion
10. Certificate of Service

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Attorney for Appellant:

[________________________________]
D.C. Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], DC [________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Statutes

Rules

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This appeal is taken from a final judgment of conviction entered on [__/__/____] in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Criminal Division, the Honorable [________________________________] presiding. The D.C. Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-721(a)(1) and D.C. Code § 23-104(a).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on [__/__/____].

☐ The notice of appeal was filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from (D.C. App. R. 4(b)(1)).
☐ A post-trial motion was filed on [__/__/____] and ruled upon on [__/__/____]; the notice of appeal was timely filed.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the trial court erred in [________________________________].

2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for [________________________________].

3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by [________________________________].

4. [________________________________]

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On or about [__/__/____], an ☐ indictment / ☐ information was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, charging Appellant with:

[Summarize significant pretrial proceedings, motions, and rulings.]

[________________________________]

On [__/__/____], the case proceeded to ☐ jury trial / ☐ bench trial / ☐ the defendant entered a plea of ☐ guilty / ☐ nolo contendere.

On [__/__/____], the jury returned a verdict of:

[________________________________]

On [__/__/____], the trial court sentenced Appellant to:

[________________________________]

(Tr. [____]; R. [____].)

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Government's Case

[________________________________]

(Tr. [____].)

B. Defense Case

[________________________________]

(Tr. [____].)

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Issue 1: [________________________________]

☐ De novo review applies to questions of law, including statutory interpretation and constitutional questions. (Whitaker v. United States, 617 A.2d 499 (D.C. 1992).)

☐ Abuse of discretion applies to the trial court's discretionary rulings, including evidentiary matters and sentencing. (Mercer v. United States, 724 A.2d 1176 (D.C. 1999).)

☐ Sufficiency of the evidence — viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, the court determines whether a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Curry v. United States, 498 A.2d 534 (D.C. 1985).)

☐ Plain error review applies when no objection was made below. The error must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. (Olano, applied in Perez v. United States, 968 A.2d 39 (D.C. 2009).)

Issue 2: [________________________________]

VI. ARGUMENT

A. [ISSUE ONE HEADING]

[________________________________]

1. Relevant Proceedings Below

[________________________________]

(Tr. [____]; R. [____].)

2. Applicable Legal Principles

[________________________________]

3. Analysis

[________________________________]

4. Prejudice

☐ Under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because [________________________________].

☐ Under Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), the nonconstitutional error substantially influenced the verdict.

B. [ISSUE TWO HEADING]

[________________________________]

1. Relevant Proceedings Below

[________________________________]

(Tr. [____]; R. [____].)

2. Applicable Legal Principles

[________________________________]

3. Analysis

[________________________________]

4. Prejudice

[________________________________]

C. [ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS NEEDED]

[________________________________]

VII. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

☐ Reverse the judgment of conviction and remand with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
☐ Reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
☐ Vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
☐ Modify the judgment as follows: [________________________________].
☐ [________________________________]

Respectfully submitted,

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, [________________________________], hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served the foregoing Brief for Appellant on the following parties by the method indicated:

☐ U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic filing via CaseFileXpress
☐ Hand delivery

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1. Notice of Appeal Deadline: Must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from (D.C. App. R. 4(b)(1)). If a timely motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial is filed, the notice of appeal deadline runs from the entry of the order disposing of the motion.

2. Page Limit: Principal brief may not exceed 50 pages; reply brief may not exceed 20 pages (D.C. App. R. 32(a)(6)).

3. Appellant's Brief Due: Within 40 days after the date on which the record is filed (D.C. App. R. 31(a)).

4. Appellee's Brief Due: Within 30 days after service of the appellant's brief.

5. Reply Brief Due: Within 21 days after service of the appellee's brief, but at least 7 days before argument.

6. Prosecution: D.C. criminal cases are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (for D.C. Code offenses) and the brief is served on that office.

7. Anders Brief: When appointed counsel finds no meritorious issues, counsel must file an Anders brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

8. Preservation: Issues must be raised below to be preserved for appeal. Unpreserved issues are reviewed only for plain error.

9. D.C. Code § 23-110: Post-conviction claims (including ineffective assistance not apparent from the record) may be raised under D.C. Code § 23-110 rather than on direct appeal.