Anders v. California

Anders v. California is a 1967 United States Supreme Court case involving a defendant's right to appellate counsel, when his/her attorney believes that there are no genuine possible grounds for a successful appeal and wishes to withdraw.

Background

Charlie Anders, a California resident, was convicted of felony marijuana possession. After conviction, he requested (in accordance with his Sixth Amendment rights) to be appointed appellate counsel, which was granted.

However, the appointed counsel, after discussion with Anders, determined that there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, notified the court that he would not file an appellate brief, and that Anders wished to do so on his own. Anders then requested new appellate counsel, which was denied; his pro se appeal was also unsuccessful.

Six years later, Anders requested his case be re-opened on grounds that his right to counsel was denied; his request was denied by state courts. The Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari.

Decision

Justice Clark, joined by Chief Justice Warren, and Justices Douglas, Brennan, White, Fortas, agreed that Anders' right to counsel was wrongly denied, and that his original counsel's bare assertion of no non-frivolous grounds was insufficient to constitute "adequate representation".

Justice Stewart, joined by Black, Harlan, dissented from the ruling.

Anders Brief

The ruling led to the development of the "Anders brief" (technically called a "no-merits" brief). In order to file such a brief, an 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.
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 an alternative argument, an attorney may request within such a brief that, if the court finds a non-frivolous ground(s) for appeal, the attorney be allowed to withdraw the brief, remain as counsel, and be permitted to amend the appeal to argue on the ground(s) that the court has found.)

Some states have modified the requirements, such as not permitting the attorney to withdraw (but not subjecting him/her to sanctions for filing frivolous briefs).

The Oregon courts noted an anomaly with the Anders decision: if an attorney argues there are no non-frivolous grounds, the court must then review the entire court record for potential error; if an attorney raises any ground for error (even if only a single one), then the court only reviews that portion of the record and not the entirety of it.