Anders v. California

Last updated

Anders v. California
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 14, 1967
Decided May 8, 1967
Full case nameAnders v. California
Citations386 U.S. 738 ( more )
87 S. Ct. 1396; 18 L. Ed. 2d 493; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1569
Case history
Prior Cert. to the Supreme Court of California
Holding
The failure to grant this indigent petitioner seeking initial review of his conviction the services of an advocate, as contrasted with an amicus curiae, which would have been available to an appellant with financial means, violated petitioner's rights to fair procedure and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityClark, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan, White, Fortas
DissentStewart, joined by Black, Harlan

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.

Contents

The Supreme Court ruled that any such motion must be accompanied by a brief (commonly referred to as an Anders brief) outlining the case and any potential (albeit possibly frivolous) grounds for appeal, that the appellate court must independently review the case, and that a defendant must be allowed the right to appeal either pro se or by other counsel.

Background

The specific case involved a California defendant, Charlie Anders, who was convicted of felony possession of marijuana. Anders then requested that the California District Court of Appeal appoint appellate counsel for him, which was granted.

Anders' counsel, after review of the case and discussion with Anders, determined that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed, and notified the court by letter that counsel would not file an appeal, and that Anders wanted to file an appeal on his own behalf. The entire notification consisted of a single letter from Anders' counsel to the court stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Anders then requested that another attorney be appointed. That request was denied, whereupon Anders filed a pro se appeal which was not successful.

Six years later, Anders requested that his case be re-opened on the basis that he was denied the right to counsel. Both the California District Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court ruled against Anders, whereupon Anders appealed to the Supreme Court which granted certiorari.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in the specific case that Anders was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as the bare assertion of lack of grounds for appeal by his counsel was not enough to constitute adequate representation. The Court ruled, however, that an attorney could still move to withdraw on the basis that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal exist, but that certain steps had to be taken before such a motion could be granted.

Anders brief

In order to file an Anders brief (also called a "no-merits brief"), the attorney must do the following:

  1. The attorney must file a motion to withdraw as the defendant's counsel.
  2. The motion to withdraw must "be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal." Any and all grounds, even if counsel considers them frivolous, must be raised in the brief. Those grounds include areas such as whether or not a plea of guilty was made voluntarily and freely, or whether the sentence imposed by the court was within the permissible range.
  3. The defendant should be given a copy of the brief and given time to raise any grounds (either pro se or by other counsel) that the defendant so chooses to raise.
  4. The court must then independently "after a full examination of all the proceedings" decide if the appeal is wholly frivolous. If the court decides it is, then it is to grant counsel's motion to withdraw and then (depending on state law) either dismiss the appeal or rule on its merits, but must still allow the defendant to further appeal if desired. If the court, though, finds that there is at least one non-frivolous ground, it must then allow the defendant the right to make the case and appoint counsel if needed. (As part of an Anders brief, an attorney may request that, if the court finds a non-frivolous ground(s) for appeal, the attorney be allowed to withdraw the brief and remain as counsel, whereupon the attorney would then amend the appeal to argue on the ground(s) that the court has found.)

Practical effect

The decision of whether or not to file an Anders brief is sometimes difficult for lawyers seeking to respect the ethical rules on frivolity while being zealous advocates for their clients. [1]

The Oregon Court of Appeals noted an anomaly with the Anders decision: if counsel raises no grounds for appeal, then the court must review the entire record to determine if a ground for appeal may exist, but if counsel raises any ground (even only one), then the court is only required to review that portion of the record pertaining to the ground raised by counsel and is not required to review any portion related to other grounds not raised. [2]

There is the possibility that an attorney may not see the merit in the error assigned by his or her client, and a client may have viable grounds for the client's claim. In State v. Williams, the Ohio Court of Appeals granted an attorney leave to withdraw, but found a potentially meritorious error and designated a different attorney to represent the defendant, noting pointedly that “an Anders brief is not a substitute for an appellate brief argued on the merits.” [3]

There have been incidents where cases have been pressed through the courts after the attorney was granted withdrawal based on an Anders brief, and the defendant has gone on to prevail. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed a conviction in State v. Wilkinson, [4] [5] and in State v. Kerby [6] the court determined that there was a potential issue as to the voluntariness of the confession, appointed new counsel to argue it, and ultimately threw out the defendant's conviction.

States abandoning Anders

According to an article in the Florida State University Law Review, some states have abandoned the Anders procedure for other means to review appellate cases where the attorney claims no non-frivolous grounds. [2]

For example, Idaho does not permit the attorney to withdraw from the case. The attorney, though, can still file an Anders brief (in terms of arguing that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal), but the courts do not then independently review the record for error, the argument being that Anders does not trigger the court to do so unless the attorney moves to withdraw, which Idaho has chosen not to permit. [2] New Hampshire also does not permit withdrawal, but specifically exempts a potentially frivolous appeal from being subject to attorney sanctions. [2]

North Dakota has taken a different approach: it allows an attorney to withdraw but then assigns a different attorney to the case so the defendant has counsel if desired. [2]

California no longer requires the attorney to withdraw. Now she or he may submit a "Wende Brief", [7] named after the case in which the procedure was approved.

States expanding Anders

Though Anders itself applies only to criminal proceedings, at least one state has expanded its holding to include other types of cases. The Arkansas Supreme Court has applied Anders by case law to family law cases involving termination of parental rights [8] and to adult protective custody cases, [9] and by its own rules to juvenile delinquency and involuntary commitment cases. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

A brief is a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why one party to a particular case should prevail.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

An interlocutory appeal occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. The rules governing how and when interlocutory appeals may be taken vary by jurisdiction.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court considered the role of standby counsel in a criminal trial where the defendant conducted his own defense. In this case the defendant claimed his Sixth Amendment right to present his own case in a criminal trial was violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel.

Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 was a case before the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. It determined that a trial court, when considering a "motion to dismiss in the interest of justice", must convene an evidentiary hearing to consider whether the dismissal would in fact be in the "interest of justice".

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals. This case is in contrast to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which grants criminal defendants the right to refuse counsel for trial purposes.

A Marsden motion is the only means by which a criminal defendant can fire a court-appointed attorney or communicate directly with a judge in a California state court. It is based on a defendant's claim that the attorney is providing ineffective assistance or has a conflict with the defendant. The name comes from the case People v. Marsden. A defendant is required to know to make a challenge of ineffective assistance of counsel, and make one, or the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or the issue cannot be raised on appeal. There is no requirement to notify a defendant of such a requirement.

Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a state court makes a factual determination the federal courts must defer to its judgment so long as it is reasonable.

In the United States, a public defender is a lawyer appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those charged with a crime or crimes who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Public defenders are full-time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender system is one of several types of criminal legal aid, the most common other system being appointed private counsel paid for by the government.

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his procedurally defaulted Fourth Amendment claim in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

References

  1. ↑ Etienne, Margareth (2005). "The Ethics of Cause Lawyering: An Empirical Examination of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Cause Lawyers". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 95 (4): 1195–1260. JSTOR   3491403.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 18, 2008. Retrieved August 13, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Anders in the Fifty States, Florida State University Law Review, 1996.
  3. ↑ 2009-Ohio-3199 (Ct. App. Ohio, 6th Dist., Fulton County 2009).
  4. ↑ 178 Ohio App. 3d 99, 2008-Ohio-4400 (Ct. App. Ohio, 2d Dist., Montgomery County 2008).
  5. ↑ "State v. Wilkinson, 178 Ohio App.3d 99, 2008-Ohio-4400" (PDF). supremecourt.ohio.gov.
  6. ↑ 2007-Ohio-187 (Ct. App. Ohio 2d Cir. 2007).
  7. ↑ Wende Brief
  8. ↑ Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. Archived 2013-06-24 at the Wayback Machine , 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004).
  9. ↑ Adams v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. Archived 2013-06-24 at the Wayback Machine , 375 Ark. 402, 291 S.W.3d 172 (2009).
  10. ↑ Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Arkansas Archived July 29, 2013, at the Wayback Machine , Rules 4-3(k) (juvenile delinquency) & 4-8 (involuntary commitment). Reviewed June 22, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.