The appellate court, after independent review of the record, found that appellate counsel satisfied his duties, that the issues raised by defendant were unsupported by the record, and that there were no arguable issues to appeal. After exhausting his state remedies, defendant filed a federal habeas action on February 24, 1994. This Court has good reason to concern itself with wasting resources, as the judiciary is particularly vulnerable to resource limitations. Judicial decisionmaking is relatively expensive, and likely to get more expensive over time. The physical constraints upon the judiciary are particularly severe at the appellate level.
Frivolous appeals are thus a particularly important problem to attack.
No legitimate interest is served by frivolous appeals. Because indigent criminal defendants have no incentive to forego frivolous appeals, this class of litigants is a singularly large source of frivolous appeals. Therefore, limiting frivolous defense appeals is a particularly fertile ground for saving scarce judicial resources. The decision implicitly mistrusts the reliability of appointed counsel and presumes that retained counsel is willing to file anything for money, no matter how frivolous the appeal. Few attorneys are so unethical or incompetent.