Opinion ID: 152980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Of Frivolous Appeals Generally

Text: In undertaking a motion for summary affirmance in a criminal appeal, the Government assumes a heavy burden, for [t]he unique importance of criminal appeals makes the decision to characterize one as frivolous particularly perilous. United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13 (2d Cir.2010) (finding non-frivolous claims of procedural unreasonableness in district court's language explaining decision not to impose a below-Guidelines sentence and of substantive unreasonableness in insufficient consideration of defendant's history and characteristics). The Supreme Court teaches that inarguable legal conclusion[s] and fanciful factual allegation[s] are hallmarks of frivolous litigation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). With specific regard to appeals raising issues of law, the Court has noted that an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where `[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)). We have identified as frivolous an appeal said to be totally lacking in merit, framed with no relevant supporting law, conclusory in nature, and utterly unsupported by the evidence. United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379, 381 (2d Cir.1982) (imposing sanctions upon appellant and counsel for frivolous appeal). Despite the restrictive legal test for finding a criminal appeal frivolous, the test is often met in cases where attorneys seek to be relieved of representation on appeal on so-called Anders motions pursuant to the following procedure: In order to be relieved pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), an appellant's counsel must conscientiously examine the case, identifying any issues that could arguably be raised on appeal. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 438-39, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1901-02, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). This Court will not grant an Anders motion unless it is satisfied that (1) counsel has diligently searched the record for any arguably meritorious issue in support of his client's appeal and (2) defense counsel's declaration that the appeal would be frivolous is, in fact, legally correct. United States v. Burnett, 989 F.2d 100, 104 (2d Cir.1993). United States v. Torres, 129 F.3d 710, 717 (2d Cir.1997). Customarily, the motion by counsel to be relieved from representation in the appeal of a criminal case is met with a motion for summary affirmance by the Government. In the Torres case, we granted both motions as to defendant Lopez: We grant counsel's Anders motion and the government's motion for summary affirmance because we believe that Lopez's case presents no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel's Anders brief addresses Lopez's plea allocution and sentence, as well as the argument that § 1959 violates the Commerce Clause. Counsel correctly concludes that none of these events present any non-frivolous issues for appeal. Id. In 2009, we granted 160 motions for summary affirmance adjunct to orders granting Anders motions by counsel to be relieved from representation of appellants in criminal appeals. Although no Anders motions is before us in this case, these statistics demonstrate that a fair number of frivolous appeals are filed in this Court. Moreover, the statistics are relevant because we analyze the frivolous issues by the same standards that we apply in deciding such motions and responsive motions for summary affirmance.