Legal Document

386 U.S. 738 87 Supreme Court Reporter 1396 18 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 493 Charles Robert ANDERS, Petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Number 98. Argued March 14, 1967. Decided May 8, Rehearing Denied June 12, See 388 924, 2094. Ira Michael Heyman for petitioner. George Judge Roth, Los Angeles, respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We are here concerned with extent duty a court-appointed appellate counsel to prosecute first appeal from criminal conviction, after that attorney has conscientiously determined there is no merit indigent's appeal. 2 After he was convicted felony possession marijuana, petitioner sought and moved California District Appeal appoint him. Such motion granted; however, study record consultation petitioner, appointed concluded He so advised court by letter and, at same time, informed wished file brief in his own behalf. At this juncture, requested appointment another attorney. This request denied proceeded pro se. The State responded filed reply brief. On January 9, 1959, unanimously affirmed People versus Anders, 167 Cal.App.2d 65, 333 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 854. 3 21, 1965, an application writ habeas corpus which have case reopened. In raised issue deprivation right original because court's refusal stage proceedings.1 on day, unreported memorandum opinion. stated it 'ha(d) again reviewed (had) (to be) without merit.' also 'the procedure prescribed re Nash, 61 A.C. 538, followed * *.'2 25, submitted petition California, July 1965. Among other trial errors, claimed both judge prosecutor had commented failure testify contrary holding Griffin 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106 (1965). California's action does not comport fair lacks equality required Fourteenth Amendment. I. 4 For decade or more, continuing line cases reached concerning discrimination against indigent dfe ndant Beginning Illinois, 351 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) where held equal justice afforded appellant nature review 'depends amount money has,' 19, 591, through Douglas 372 353, 83 814, 9 811 (1963), consistently invalid those procedures 'where rich man, who appeals as right, enjoys benefit counsel's examination into record, research law, marshalling arguments behalf, while indigent, already burdened preliminary determination merit, forced shift himself.' 358, 817. Indeed, federal courts, advice long been whenever defendant challenges certification taken good faith, Johnson States, 352 565, 77 550, 593 (1957), such representation must be role advocate, Ellis 356 674, 675, 78 974, 975, 1060 (1958), rather than amicus curiae. Ellis, supra, we concluded: 5 'If convinced, conscientious investigation, frivolous, course, may ask withdraw account. If satisfied diligently investigated possible grounds appeal, agrees evaluation case, then leave allowed denied.' 975. 6 Gideon Wainwright, 335, 792, 799 Sixth Amendment's requirement accused shall enjoy Assistance Counsel defence' made obligatory Amendment, 'in our adversary system justice, any person haled court, too poor hire lawyer, cannot assured unless provided him.' 344, 796. continue adhere these principles. II. 7 petitioner's wrote Appeal, stating: 8 'I will & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions am visited communicated Anders explained views opinions him *. (H)e wishes matter behalf.' having examined conviction. believe bare conclusion, evidenced letter, enough. It smacks treatment Eskridge received, condemned, permitted withhold transcript if found 'has accorded impartial trial, Court's grave prejudicial errors occurred therein.' Washington Board, 357 214, 215, 1061, 1062, 1269 (1958). procedure, said, 'cannot adequate substitute full available all defendants' able afford expense. 216, 1062. And still 'a state officer outside judicial system' given power deprive refusing order merely thought 'appeal would unsuccessful,' reversed finding did meet constitutional standards. Lane Brown, 477, 768, 892 (1963). Here but refused proceed it. no-merit whereupon itself judgment. some six years later nome rit. failed, say whether frivolous not, but, consideration, simply 'without Court, dismissing application, gave reason its decision do know basis action. frivolity either courts acted greater capacity curiae condemned supra. Hence furnish acting advocate nor provide consideration resolution obtained when capacity. necessity highlighted disadvantage suffered here. se brief, urged several failed raise point jury regarding testify. outlawed comment rule, embodied Article I, § 13, Constitution. III. 10 substantial process can only attained acts active behalf client, opposed triggers reach dignity. should, honor conflict, more assistance client court.3 His requires support client's best ability. Of finds wholly it, should advise permission withdraw. That must, accompanied referring anything might arguably A copy furnished time points chooses; court—not counsel—then proceeds, proceedings, decide frivolous. grant dismiss insofar requirements concerned, merits, law requires. hand, legal arguable their merits (and therefore frivolous) prior decision, argue 11 force latter advocacy nonindigent obtain. induce pursue vigorously ready references authorities counsel. affords neither aid. former entirely himself cold help advocate. Moreover, handling tend protect constantly increasing charge ineffective handled diligence entitled. assure penniless defendants rightsan d opportunities appeal—as nearly practicable—as enjoyed persons similar situation retention private 12 judgment remanded further proceedings inconsistent ordered. 13 Judgment remanded. (May 1967.) 15 STEWART, whom BLACK HARLAN join, dissenting. 16 used described Cal.2d 491, 495, 39 Cal.Rptr. 205, 208, 393 405, 408: 17 'We (372 811) met when, represent thoroughly studies consults counsel, concludes meritorious thereafter light personally assessment correct, need properly oral argument.' (Emphasis added.) today holds unconstitutional, imposes upon deems 'wholly frivolous' filing appeal.' But present 'arguable' issues, 'no-merit' place.* 19 quixotic imposed explained, think, cynical assumption lawyer's professional trusted. subscribe. lawyers indigents likely lacking diligence, competence, honesty. Certainly suggestion incompetent unethical. 20 even could join degrading appraisal forma pauperis bar, escapes me how commands constitutionally superior now California. fundamental error opinion, seems me, implicit assertion single inflexible answer difficult problem accord protection appellants each 50 States. 21 Believing under Anders' considere w free error, affirm Previously, 24, 1964, parole, arrested burglary granted certiorari, 264, 1032, 40, vacated below Chapman 18, 824, 705. 405 (1964), event concludes, advises appeal; defendant, conclusion correct. proceeds argument. comparative purposes see Tate 123 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 359 Federal 245, 124 29, 360 844, outline practice Columbia. These guidelines elaborated detail 'Statement Handed Clerk Appointed Counsel' prepared Appeals Columbia Circuit. indicate approval set out statement cases. concedes much states believes goes hold 'if (the court) *.' Ante, Page 744. Even accepting requirement, one perceive remand new most turned up claim silence trial. conviction before decided. Our Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 86 459, 453, based premise commenting defendant's well established thus issue. Cf. O'Connor Ohio, 385 92, 252, 189.

Classification Label: 1