McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1

1988-06-06

Headline: State rule upheld requiring court-appointed appellate lawyers to explain why an indigent client's appeal lacks merit, making it easier for courts to evaluate and possibly end weak appeals.

Holding: The Court held that Wisconsin may require appointed appellate lawyers to file a brief explaining why they believe an indigent client's appeal is without merit, finding that requirement consistent with Anders and the Sixth Amendment.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to require explanations for no-merit appeals.
Makes it easier for courts to dismiss weak appeals without full briefing.
Affects duties of court-appointed appellate lawyers nationwide.

Topics: right to counsel, appellate appeals, indigent defense, court-appointed lawyers

Summary

Background

An indigent defendant convicted of abduction and sexual assault had an attorney appointed for his appeal. After reviewing the record, the lawyer said the appeal was frivolous but filed a brief both listing possible arguments and refusing to explain why they lacked merit. Wisconsin has a rule that requires appointed counsel to file a brief noting anything that might support the appeal and a short discussion explaining why the issues lack merit. The defendant challenged that discussion requirement as inconsistent with prior cases and as violating the right to an advocate.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Wisconsin rule conflicts with Anders (which requires counsel to point out anything that might support an appeal) or with the Sixth Amendment right to effective advocacy. The majority said the Anders rule remains required, and the Wisconsin requirement is a modest additional step that helps courts decide whether the attorney did a thorough job and whether the appeal truly is frivolous. The Court emphasized attorneys’ ethical duty of candor to the tribunal and said the rule does not force counsel to argue against the client; it only asks for a short explanation to show diligence. The Court therefore affirmed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the rule.

Real world impact

This decision lets states require appointed appellate counsel to submit a brief explaining why they view an appeal as meritless. Appellate courts can use that explanation to decide whether to permit withdrawal and to affirm convictions without ordering a full merits brief. If a court finds nonfrivolous issues, it must appoint counsel to pursue the appeal.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent warned the rule forces appointed counsel into the role of a friend of the court rather than an advocate and could disadvantage indigent defendants who cannot obtain a second opinion.