Anders v. California

Background

A man convicted of possessing marijuana asked a California court to appoint a lawyer for his first appeal. The appointed lawyer studied the record, told the court by letter he found no merit, and declined to file a brief. The defendant asked for a new lawyer, was denied, and filed his own brief. The state courts reviewed the record and denied relief; years later the defendant sought habeas review and raised the denial of effective appellate counsel.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the lawyer’s bare “no-merit” letter satisfied the duty owed to an indigent appellant. It held that such a letter alone is not enough. If an appointed lawyer, after a careful review, believes an appeal is frivolous, the lawyer may ask to withdraw but must file a brief pointing out anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of that brief must be given to the defendant, and the court must then decide whether any issues are arguable. If the court finds arguable points, it must provide counsel to represent the indigent on appeal.

Real world impact

The decision reverses California’s handling of this case and remands for further steps consistent with these requirements. Poor defendants seeking their first appeal will now get more active advocacy from appointed counsel and a clearer chance to raise new arguments. Courts must examine the record with the aid of counsel’s brief before dismissing an appeal as frivolous.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued California’s existing procedure was adequate, warning the majority’s fixed requirement unfairly distrusts appointed lawyers and intrudes on state choices.