Court Opinion

ID: 9585770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:03:43.358424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:14.395564
License: Public Domain

Benham, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The majority decides today that not only will we deny this Anders motion, but that this court will no longer recognize Anders motions in any case. While I agree with the court’s denial of this Anders motion, I am substantially less confident in the majority’s approach to all future Anders motions; therefore, I dissent to raise a voice of caution.
Our present approach to Anders motions is set out in Bethay v. State, 237 Ga. 625 (229 SE2d 406) (1976): “Appointed counsel may withdraw from a case on appeal only upon compliance with the rules set out in Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (87 SC 1396, 18 LE2d 493) (1967). Anders requires that appointed counsel accomplish the following: (1) submit to this court a request for permission to withdraw based upon counsel’s opinion that, after conscientious examination of the transcript and record he finds the appeal to be ‘wholly frivolous’; (2) accompany the request with a brief setting forth anything of record which ‘might arguably support the appeal’; and (3) furnish his indigent client a copy of the brief in order to allow the defendant to raise any points he chooses to raise . . . When the above requirements are satisfied by counsel, Anders requires this court to examine fully the record and transcript and determine whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. If not found to be so, the appellant must be furnished further assistance of counsel to continue the appeal. If found to be frivolous, counsel’s request to withdraw may be granted and the appeal will be dismissed.”
This approach to criminal appeals in cases involving appointed counsel for indigent defendants arose out of dissatisfaction with procedures which existed prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in Anders, supra. Quoting from Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (83 SC 814, 815, 9 LE2d 811) (1963), Anders sought to correct a situation “ ‘where the rich man, who appeals as of right, enjoys the benefit of counsel’s examination into the record, research of the law, and marshalling of arguments on his behalf, while the indigent, already burdened by a preliminary determination that his case is without merit, is forced to shift for himself.’ ” Anders, supra, 18 LE2d at 496.
The solution devised to remedy this problem is that outlined above in Bethay, which was followed by the Supreme Court of Geor*536gia until its decision in Huguley v. State, 253 Ga. 709 (324 SE2d 729) (1985), when it discontinued granting such motions. However, our court continued to recognize Anders motions until today.
The question here may be phrased thusly: “What duty does appointed counsel owe to an indigent defendant in prosecuting an appeal?” That question was answered in Anders when the U. S. Supreme Court said that an indigent defendant has a right to counsel on first appeal unless counsel finds the matter to be “wholly frivolous.” The majority today declares in one fell swoop that there is no such thing as a frivolous criminal appeal; it is with that conclusion that I take issue. I find myself in agreement with Justice Stewart, who in dissenting in Anders (at 18 LE2d 500) observed that “[t]he fundamental error in the Court’s opinion ... is its implicit assertion that there can be but a single inflexible answer to the difficult problem of how to accord equal protection to indigent appellants. . . .”
In joining the Supreme Court of Georgia in disallowing Anders motions, the majority declines to make an independent review of the record without the assistance of counsel. Our role as an appellate court, however, is somewhat different than that of the Supreme Court in that we are a court for the correction of errors of law, while it has a more expansive role. Graham v. State, 152 Ga. App. 233, 238 (262 SE2d 465) (1979). Whereas in the criminal arena we consider matters from misdemeanors to manslaughter, the Supreme Court’s direct criminal jurisdiction extends only to “cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed. . . .” (1983 Constitution of Georgia, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (8)); it is understandable, therefore, that since it deals with matters of extreme gravity, the Supreme Court would, out of an abundance of caution, need some assistance of counsel in reviewing the record.
As to the matter of independent review, appellate courts have been making such a review of the record in a variety of types of cases, including defamation (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (84 SC 710, 11 LE2d 686) (1964)) and sufficiency of the evidence cases (Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979)), to mention just two. If we kept Anders motions, our review of the record would not be entirely without the benefit of trial counsel because under Bethay, supra, trial counsel would be required to set forth those enumerations that could arguably be advanced in support of the appeal. Therefore, some assistance would be provided in directing the court’s attention to possible errors.
The question is not one of balancing the indigent defendant’s right to counsel on his first appeal against the attorney’s desire to withdraw. If that were the case, we would certainly favor the right to counsel. I see the question as being one of determining the appropriate manner by which the indigent defendant can be offered the right *537to counsel on the first appeal without doing violence to the integrity of the judicial process and without forcing the lawyer to advance arguments that are wholly frivolous.
While the law presumes that every defendant enters upon the trial of the case with a presumption of innocence in his favor (OCGA § 16-1-5), I know of no presumption that every appeal is meritorious. I suspect that this is why the court in Anders provided a reasonable method for an attorney to exit the case when he concluded that the appeal was wholly frivolous.
The statute books and case reports are replete with citations too numerous to mention where, in the civil arena, we have imposed penalties in various forms on litigants and attorneys who file and pursue frivolous lawsuits and appeals. That body of law shows that both the legislative and judicial branches of government have chosen to impose civil penalties to prevent the abuse of the legal system and to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
The public is clamoring for more realistic approaches to justice that provide for fairness, expeditiousness, and finality. Unfortunately, the majority now compounds the problem by forcing lawyers to advance arguments that are meritless for the mere sake'of prosecuting an appeal. Added to this will be the requirement that we treat all arguments as having been offered in good faith even when reason and good conscience dictate otherwise. The end result might very well be a charade that will disserve justice and will erode confidence in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. I cannot abide this result; therefore, I must dissent. I also concur fully with the opinions of Presiding Judge Deen and Presiding Judge Banke.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen joins in this opinion.