Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1967

Anders v. California

386 U.S. 738 | 87 S. Ct. 1396 | 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 | 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1569

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case requires appointed appellate counsel who finds a first appeal frivolous to follow a procedure that protects the indigent defendant's right to real advocacy and gives the court—not counsel—the final word on frivolousness.

Background

After Michael Anders was convicted in California of possessing marijuana, he sought a first appeal as of right and received appointed counsel. Counsel reviewed the record, consulted with Anders, concluded that the appeal had no merit, and sent the appellate court a letter stating that he would not file a brief. The letter also reported that Anders wanted to submit a brief on his own.

The court denied Anders's request for substitute counsel. Anders then filed a pro se brief, the State responded, and the California District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. Years later, Anders sought habeas relief, arguing that he had been denied counsel on his original appeal. The District Court of Appeal again reviewed the record and found the appeal without merit; the California Supreme Court denied relief without opinion.

The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether California's procedure—allowing appointed counsel to withdraw through a bare no-merit letter while the indigent appellant proceeded on his own—provided the equality and fair process required on a first appeal as of right.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether California's procedure, under which appointed appellate counsel filed only a no-merit letter and the indigent defendant was left to present his own appeal, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

No. The procedure denied the indigent appellant the equal and fair appellate representation required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning

The Court placed the case within its line of decisions requiring meaningful equality between wealthy and indigent defendants on a first appeal as of right. Under Griffin and Douglas, a State may not give a defendant who can afford counsel the benefit of legal research, record review, and advocacy while leaving an indigent defendant, whose case has already been labeled meritless, to fend for himself.

Appointed counsel must function as an advocate for the client, not merely as an amicus curiae. Counsel's conclusory letter gave neither Anders nor the court meaningful assistance: Anders had to identify and present legal claims without a lawyer, while the court had only the unaided record rather than an advocate's analysis of possible issues and relevant authorities.

The court's own review of the record did not cure the defect. Neither California court clearly found the appeal wholly frivolous, and the process did not ensure that counsel had acted as an advocate before the appeal was resolved. The risk was concrete: Anders's pro se brief omitted a potentially important claim concerning comments on his failure to testify, an issue later addressed in Griffin v. California.

Issue #2

What procedure must be followed when appointed counsel conscientiously concludes that an indigent defendant's first appeal is wholly frivolous.

Holding

Counsel may seek to withdraw, but must first file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the defendant must receive the brief and an opportunity to respond, and the court must independently determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Reasoning

After a conscientious examination, counsel who concludes that an appeal is wholly frivolous may advise the court and request permission to withdraw. But the request must be accompanied by a brief referring to any part of the record that could arguably support the appeal. This requirement does not compel counsel to argue against the client; it assures that the client and court receive the benefit of counsel's professional review.

Counsel must furnish the brief to the indigent defendant and allow time for the defendant to raise additional points. The appellate court—not counsel—must then conduct a full examination of the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.

If the court finds the appeal wholly frivolous, it may permit counsel to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, subject to any state-law requirement to decide the merits. If the court identifies any issue that is arguable on its merits, it must provide counsel to argue the appeal before deciding it. This process more nearly gives indigent appellants the opportunities available to defendants who can retain private counsel.

Dissents

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart, joined by Justices Black and Harlan, would have upheld California's procedure. In his view, California already required appointed counsel to study the record, consult with the defendant and trial counsel, and conscientiously determine that no meritorious issue existed; the appellate court then independently reviewed the record in light of any points raised by the defendant.

He regarded the majority's required brief as internally inconsistent. If counsel could identify an issue that arguably supported the appeal, then the appeal was not wholly frivolous and counsel should not have filed a no-merit letter in the first place.

Justice Stewart also rejected the majority's apparent distrust of appointed lawyers. He saw no basis to assume that attorneys representing indigent appellants were generally incompetent, inattentive, or professionally dishonest, and no claim suggested that Anders's own lawyer had acted improperly. He believed California's approach could constitutionally protect indigent appellants without imposing a single inflexible procedure on every State.