Smith v. Robbins

Background

Lee Robbins was convicted in California state court of second-degree murder and grand theft and sentenced to 17 years to life. On appeal his appointed lawyer concluded the appeal was frivolous and filed a Wende brief (a summary brief asking the court to review the record). The California Court of Appeal affirmed and the state supreme court denied review. Robbins later filed a federal habeas petition claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for not following the Anders procedure.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether Anders — which prescribes a specific withdrawal-and-briefing routine when counsel thinks an appeal is frivolous — is the only constitutionally acceptable procedure. The Court held Anders is a prophylactic template, not an exclusive command. It found California’s Wende procedure constitutional because it still requires counsel to review the record and the court to independently examine the record and order briefing if nonfrivolous issues appear. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and explained that claims of ineffective appellate assistance must be judged under Strickland’s two-part test.

Real world impact

The decision lets States use procedures other than Anders so long as those procedures adequately protect an indigent appellant’s right to counsel and to an appellate review tied to the appeal’s merits. A defendant who says appellate counsel was ineffective after a valid Wende review must show counsel acted unreasonably and that prejudice is likely under Strickland. The case was sent back for further proceedings to apply that standard.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing Wende fails to ensure adversarial, issue-spotting advocacy and therefore does not provide the meaningful protections Anders and related precedents demanded.