Court Opinion

ID: 9798232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:45:55.743684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:30.629545
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
¶ 18 I concur in the majority opinion. We have held that an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is more effectively presented through a post-conviction-relief proceeding than on direct appeal from a conviction unless, on the face of the record, counsel was plainly ineffective. State v. Ricehill, 415 N.W.2d 481 (N.D.1987). This is an appeal from a post-conviction judgment. Moore alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in the post-conviction proceeding itself; however, on the face of this record, it appears post-conviction counsel abandoned the client. Post-conviction counsel filed a notice of appearance and a discovery request but, on the face of the record before us, made no further appearance on behalf of the client nor did counsel notify the court there would be no further appearance on behalf of the client. On this record we must conclude that counsel was ineffective.
[¶ 19] We dispose of this case on the basis that there could be no prejudice because, again on the face of the record and *841this Court’s previous decisions involving Moore, the issues have already been the subject of an appeal to this Court. That may, indeed, be the reason that counsel, after filing the notice of appearance and the discovery request, made no further appearance. If so, counsel is in a dilemma as to how to proceed.
[IT 20] I write to note that for appeal purposes we have rejected the approach used in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). There the Court held that an attorney assigned to represent a defendant on appeal, but who believes there is no merit to the appeal, should move to withdraw as counsel stating his belief, accompanied by a brief that points to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See State v. Lewis, 291 N.W.2d 735 (N.D.1980). In Lewis, we concluded the statutes and the North Dakota Constitution guaranteed the right of appeal that would be violated if this Court were to dismiss the appeal on the basis of counsel’s motion on behalf of the indigent client. Rather than adopting Anders, we outlined the procedure counsel should follow in those instances:
We conclude that the proper procedure to be followed by the courts of this State in cases such as the one before us in which the court-appointed defense counsel believes that the indigent defendant’s appeal is without merit is to appoint another attorney to represent the defendant on appeal as soon after the initially appointed attorney makes his opinion as to frivolity known to the court as is practical. The appointment of another attorney will provide the indigent defendant with legal counsel at all stages of his appeal and will eliminate the double burden of first convincing this court that the appeal has some degree of merit warranting an attorney’s counsel and later coming back to this court to convince us that the degree of merit which warranted an attorney’s counsel also supports a reversal of his conviction. Conceivably, the situation may arise where the trial court will have to designate an attorney to represent the defendant to the best of his ability notwithstanding the fact that the attorney does not believe the appeal has merit.
Id. at 738. But this is not an appeal, counsel at the trial court level was at least the second counsel assigned to Moore’s post-conviction proceeding, and the right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings is governed by statute. N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-05. Furthermore, I question whether the Lewis court contemplated a succession of withdrawals and appointments of counsel in the same proceeding. Perhaps the time has come to apply an Anders procedure at the trial court level even if we are unwilling to do so at the appellate level. In any event to do nothing is not the proper procedure for assigned counsel who believes there is no merit to the indigent defendant’s position in the proceeding. See N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.16.
[1121] MARY MUEHLEN MARING, J., concurs.