Document: 488 U.S. 75 109 S.Ct. 346 102 L.Ed.2d 300 Steven A. PENSON, Petitionerv.OHIO. No. 87-6116. Argued Oct. 12, 1988. Decided Nov. 29, Syllabus After the indigent petitioner and two codefendants were found guilty of several serious crimes in an Ohio state court, new counsel appointed to represent on appeal filed with Court Appeals a document captioned "Certification Meritless Appeal Motion," which recited that attorney had carefully reviewed record, he no errors requiring reversal, would not file meritless appeal, requested leave withdraw. The court entered order granted latter motion specified thereafter independently review record thoroughly determine whether any reversible error existed. later denied petitioner's request for appointment attorney. Subsequently, upon making its own examination without assistance petitioner, noted counsel's certification meritlessness was "highly questionable" since "several arguable claims," and, fact, reversed one convictions plain error, but concluded "suffered prejudice" as result "counsel's failure give more conscientious record" because examined received benefit arguments advanced by co-defendants' counsel. therefore affirmed remaining counts, State Supreme dismissed his appeal. Held: 1. Petitioner deprived constitutionally adequate representation Appeals' follow procedures set forth Anders v. California, 386 738, 87 1396, 18 493, allowing criminal defendant withdraw from first right basis is frivolous. Under those procedures, must conduct "conscientious examination" case support brief referring anything might arguably then full all proceedings permit withdrawal if separate inquiry reveals nonfrivolous issue, appoint argue such issue exists. erred respects denying First, supported "Anders brief," so left determining performed duty searching court's record. Second, should have acted before it made evaluation sound. Most significantly, failing after claims." Such determination creates constitutional imperative be appointed, need forceful vigorous advocacy ensure rights are forgone substantial legal factual passed over paramount importance our adversary system justice, at trial or appellate stage. Pp. 79-85. 2. In cases this, inappropriate apply either lack prejudice standard Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 harmless-error analysis Chapman 18, 824, 17 705. application render protections afforded meaningless, appellant suffer harm denial thus complaint, reviewing bare conviction there reversal. consideration briefs behalf does alter this conclusion, entitled single-minded mere possibility coincidence interest represented codefendant inadequate proxy. More question codefendants, along adequately focused attention claims itself been resolved proceeding. Furthermore, important completely during actual decisional process, total legally presumed can never considered harmless 85-89. Reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 89. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting Gregory L. Ayers, Columbus, Ohio, petitioner. Mark B. Robinette, Richmond, Va., respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 493 (1967), we gave negative answer question: 2 "May refuse provide defendant's conclusory statement has merit will brief?" Brief O.T.1966, 98, 3 presented remarkably similar requires answer. 4 * indigent. Montgomery County, Common Pleas, crimes. sentenced term imprisonment 28 years. On January 8, 1985, him Counsel timely notice 5 June 2, 1986, Motion." Excluding caption certificate evidencing service prosecutor's office entirety read follows: 6 "Appellant's respectfully certifies within modification and/or vacation appellant's jury sentence Case 84-CR-1056, 84-CR-1401, matter. 7 "MOTION 8 requests Journal Entry permitting thereby relieving further responsibility prosecute attorney/client relationship terminated effective date file-stamped App. 35-36. 9 A week later, granting 30 days pro se. Id., 37. "independently exists reversal sentence. . ." Ibid. Thus, permitted nothing than "a brief." Moreover, although extensions time brief, No merits behalf. 10 due course, fair grave prejudicial occurred therein." 40. As initial matter, questionable." 41. Indeed, committed instructions concerning count.1 count sentences counts. It codefendants. appealed judgment 45. We certiorari, 484 1059, 108 1011, 98 977 (1988), now reverse. II 11 Approximately quarter century ago, Douglas 372 353, 83 814, 811 (1963), recognized Fourteenth Amendment guarantees right. held procedure courts "appoint their opinion" "would helpful court," id., 355, S.Ct., 815, substitute guaranteed representation.2 Four years L.Ed. may based assertion she 12 did, however, recognize some circumstances provided certain safeguards observed: Appointed required case. 744, 1400. If wholly frivolous, "must, accompanied appeal." Once receives proceeding[s] decide frivolous." Only inquiry, only finds proceed consider other hand, disagrees counsel—as did case—and concludes issues "it must, prior decision, afford apparent when withdraw, even failed finding meritorious grounds result, 13 Appeal" draw "anything appeal."3 so-called brief" serves valuable purpose assisting both fact conducted detailed case4 indeed frivolous decided presentation. twin function itself, U.S., 745, 1400-01, again emphasized last Term. decision McCoy Wisconsin, 486 429, 1895, 100 440 clearly stated designed "to fully clients' best ability," also help make "the critical withdraw." 439, 1902. Counsel's search advocate cold appeal.5 14 sound.6 This requirement plainly Ellis United States, 356 674, 675, 78 974, 975-76, 1060 (1958), repeated Anders, 1400, reiterated Term McCoy, 442, 1903-1904. explained McCoy: 15 "To satisfy federal concerns, faces interrelated tasks rules client diligent thorough claim client's correctly 16 determined unambiguously provides, "if [the court] points (and frivolous) 1400; see 444, 1904-1905 ("Of raised, pursue direct prepare advocate's deciding merits"). necessarily follows understanding interplay between Anders. essence, recognizes limited exception articulated defendants receive predicated Amendment—although demanding active defendants—does demand States require press arguments. However, once determines supports claims, Douglas, representation. therefore, created appointed. bears emphasis among most fundamental rights. long "lawyers necessities, luxuries." Gideon Wainwright, 335, 344, 792, 796, 799 (1963). general through accused protected: "Of person has, far pervasive, affects ability assert have." Schaefer, Federalism Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv.L.Rev. 1, (1956); Kimmelman Morrison, 477 365, 377, 106 2574, 2584, 91 305 (1986); Cronic, 648, 654, 2039, 2043-44, 657 (1984). nature adversarial justice. premised well-tested principle truth—as well fairness—is " 'best discovered powerful statements sides question.' Kaufman, Does Judge Have Right Qualified Counsel?, 61 A.B.A.J. 569, 569 (1975) (quoting Lord Eldon); 655, 2044; Polk County Dodson, 454 312, 318-319, 445, 449-50, 509 (1981). Absent representation, unlikely able test government's case, for, Sutherland wrote Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 158 (1932), "[e]ven intelligent educated layman small sometimes skill science law." 69, 64. come abrupt halt proceeding moves Both stages prosecution, perhaps involving unique skills, careful inadvertently over. Evitts Lucey, 469 387, 105 830, 821 (1985): 19 "In bringing conviction, attempting demonstrate consequent drastic loss liberty, unlawful. To face that—like trial—is governed intricate layperson hopelessly forbidding. An unrepresented appellant—like unable protect vital interests stake." 396, 836. 20 By appointing him, presentation issues. III 21 nonetheless maintains counsel, conclusion suffered "no indicates show under (1984), 705 (1967). event, State's view, affirmance stand.7 disagree. 22 primary difficulty argument proves too much. disputes below number claims. prejudice, simply asserting that, ultimately unconvinced count—should reversed. Finding appellants theory, conclude reversed, suffers being Similarly, find prejudice. harmed complaint. adopting view meaningless 23 Nor persuaded alters conclusion. One party's satisfied relying another party. See Tr. Oral Arg. 28-29. contrary, "[t]he Constitution contemplates services devoted solely client. Glasser 315 60, 70, 62 457, 465, 86 680 [ (1942) ]." Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 725, 68 316, 324, 92 309 (1948) (plurality opinion). proxy.8 appears suggest, rarely, ever, remedy who extent codefendant's happens raise relevant they share common interest. Again, 24 acting convinced odds codefendants' involved significant stake cases. Mere speculation difference advocacy, particularly unguided process.9 25 Finally, emphasize process. quite different claimed performance ineffective. Strickland, "[a]ctual constructive altogether prejudice." 692, 2067. Our likewise, makes clear presumption essential us unfair stage trial." 659, 2047 (footnote omitted). "so basic [its] infraction treated error." 23, n. 827-28, 8. And recently, Satterwhite Texas, 249, 256, 1792, 1797, 284 pervasive casts doubt fairness error. Because cease prosecutorial process stage, supra, 85, extend 26 present unlike fails particular cf. Jones Barnes, 463 103 3308, 987 (1983), effectively might. Rather, already withdraw; entirely relief sought action hardly deemed Cf. 439-440, 13, 1902, 13. Chapman.10 27 accordingly remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered. 29 concurring. I join Court's write separately forecloses technical violation excusable. violation, concur. 31 Chief dissenting. 32 Sixth provides "[i]n prosecutions, shall enjoy Assistance defense." construed language include trial, conferred (1984); (1985). 33 There undoubtedly equal protection component decisions extending appeal; Griffin Illinois, 351 76 585, 891 supra. But 34 duplicate arsenal privately retained continuing effort reverse assure opportunity fairly context process." Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 616, 94 2437, 2446-47, 41 341 (1974). 35 today loses sight instead seeks engraft onto exactly laid down Thus today's added futile monument guarantee what him: same sort suitably private 36 doubtless lawyers admitted practice who, retainer, urging, straight face, rational concept public policy lead financing effort. justifies "serves presentation." Ante, 81—82 These desirable purposes, seems me stretches good deal say these pursued manner. confer supervise rendered, rather pursuing 37 Here rendered "assistance" ineffectiveness mandated order. 687-696, 2064-69. states—and reason disbelieve him—that conscientiously "found [his case]." 35. turned out, incorrect, mean employ talents Whether evaluative constituted cannot affected "[T]he canons professional ethics impose limits permissible advocacy. obligation lawyer—whether publicly appointed—not clog motions appeals." 323, 452, 38 attorney's erroneous That judged Strickland. Of himself collateral effectiveness following safe-harbor outlined described today, filing strong diligently worked correct assessing frivolousness allowed withdrawal. outline prudent course wishes declines it, remains underlying judged. 39 group three men broke into dwelling robbed, raped, otherwise sexually assaulted adult inhabitants. questioned stood substantially position defending against charges.* result. reversing another. Although "coincidence codefendant," ante, 87, certainly eliminate poor brings make. beneficial utilizing available papers exercising independent doing so, brief. facts, think correct. charged counts indictment felonious assault. 6-7; Rev.Code Ann. § 2903.11(A)(2) (1987). examining neglected instruct element crime. Applying plain-error doctrine, showing indictment, let stand 5. 41-43. reaching noted: "At barren speaks indigent, unless printed pages injustice committed, forced go champion Any real chance hidden decides ex parte required." 356, 816. Appeal," appellant's" sentence, 35, marked resemblance no-merit letter "Dear Van Dyke: "This advise you transcript CHARLIE ANDERS relates crime possession narcotics. "I am visited communicated Mr. my views opinions relate "Mr. advised matter Record 6. Not assist but, marginal cases, inducement perform review: "The danger busy inexperienced lawyer opt favor individual real, notwithstanding dedication typifies profession. If, ultimate written 'referring appeal,' 744 [87 1400] ., temptation discharge summary fashion avoided, meaningful assistance." Nickols Gagnon, F.2d 467, 470 (CA7 1971) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 408 925, 2504, 336 (1972). addition, putting pen paper often shed light appear open-and-shut issue. hurdle faced accurately reflect trial. Presumably, contact discuss thus, arguing additional below. communications. Obviously, concluding deferring date. free ambiguity. wrote: "Because assignments raised defendants' appeals record." 40-41. unclear relied Chapman, relief, limit violated omission prejudicial. is, distinction joint appropriate, appellants. decline sit place instance prejudiced 390, 2591, (1986). do raising questions law. Federal Courts reached like denials rel. Thomas O'Leary, 856 1011 1988); Freels Hills, 843 958 (CA6 Jenkins Coombe, (CA2 1987), 1008, 704, 655 (1988); Cannon Berry, 727 1020 (CA11 1984); Sanders Clarke, 1134 (CA8 Lockhart McCotter, 782 1275 (CA5 1986), 479 1030, 107 873, 93 827 (1987); West, 791 1578 (CA10 1986). asserts "[a]n codefendants'. 87. pure speculation. Nothing nor majority suggests theory how done why, conflict existed, could discern

Category: 1