Wilkins v. United States
Headline: A convicted federal prisoner whose court-appointed lawyer failed to file a timely petition for Supreme Court review gets the Court to vacate the appellate judgment and remand to allow appointment of counsel.
Holding:
- Allows courts to vacate appellate judgments when appointed counsel failed to file timely Supreme Court review petitions.
- Permits appointment of new counsel to help prisoners seek timely Supreme Court review.
- Reinforces that courts and the Solicitor General can act to protect indigent defendants’ review rights.
Summary
Background
A convicted federal prisoner says his court-appointed lawyer promised to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to review his case but never did. The District Court convicted him and the Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction on June 9, 1977. The prisoner filed to this Court on December 14, 1978 — about 17 months late — and submitted affidavits from himself, his wife, and his minister supporting his story that his lawyer ignored his requests.
Reasoning
The narrow question was what remedy is available when an appointed lawyer fails or refuses to file a timely petition for Supreme Court review. The Court relied on the Criminal Justice Act and the Solicitor General’s recommendation. Noting that Courts of Appeals require appointed lawyers to prepare review petitions, the Court granted the prisoner’s in forma pauperis request, allowed the petition, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded so the appeals court can reenter its judgment and, if appropriate, appoint counsel to help the prisoner seek timely review here.
Real world impact
The ruling gives a path for defendants whose appointed lawyers failed to pursue review: a higher court can undo the earlier appellate judgment so the defendant can try again with counsel. This decision is procedural, not a ruling on the merits of the criminal conviction, and it allows further proceedings in the Court of Appeals to resolve whether counsel should be appointed.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Rehnquist dissented from vacating the judgment because the prisoner raised no substantive challenge; Justice Stevens said the appeals court should decide first; Justice Powell did not participate.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?