Opinion ID: 1337436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anders Brief

Text: The State argues that articulating an issue in an Anders brief does not constitute fair presentation of that issue to the appellate court necessary to support habeas review. We disagree. In Anders v. California , the United States Supreme Court announced the procedure an appointed attorney should follow if that attorney believes the client's appeal is frivolous and without merit. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Supreme Court held the attorney could petition for permission to withdraw from the case, but that the petition for withdrawal must be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d at 498. Under Anders, the defendant must be given time to respond and to raise any additional points after his attorney submits the Anders brief. Id. The court then is obligated to conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Id. According to Anders, if the reviewing court finds the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d at 498 (emphasis added). The State argues that a dismissal by the Court of Appeals does not qualify as a decision on the merits for purposes of federal habeas review, insisting that the dismissal is based on a finding of frivolousness. [3] The State asserts that arguments presented in an Anders brief are not raised for consideration on the merits and are raised merely so the reviewing court may determine if the attorney properly reviewed the case before concluding the appeal was frivolous. In this particular case, it is clear the Court of Appeals reached the merits in its dismissal. As discussed, according to Anders, the reviewing court is obligated to make a full examination of the proceedings on its own. Anders. After such an examination, if the reviewing court agrees with the attorney, it may dismiss the appeal or proceed to a decision on the merits. Id. On the other hand, if the court disagrees with the attorney's analysis of the appeal, it must afford the defendant the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d at 498. The purpose of filing a brief under Anders is to ensure the merits of the appeal are not overlooked. The court has to conclude independently, regardless of counsel's conclusion, whether or not the appeal has merit before it can dismiss the appeal. In the case at hand, Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief with the Court of Appeals and the Appellant filed a pro se response, raising the issues he considered important. In the Anders brief, Appellant's counsel argued the trial court committed reversible error by denying Appellant's motion for a continuance under the standard articulated by this Court in State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991). After reviewing both documents and the record as a whole, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal pursuant to Anders and Williams. The Court of Appeals' citation to Williams indicates, at the very least, that it reviewed the merits of the argument Appellant's counsel put forth in the Anders brief: whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a continuance. As Appellant has not yet filed any federal habeas petition, we do not know what arguments he will choose to raise. The federal court ultimately will determine whether any issues raised to the Court of Appeals were properly presented for purposes of granting federal habeas relief. To guide them, however, and for purposes of state law, we find the Court of Appeals' dismissal in this case was on the merits.