McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state rule requiring appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw from a frivolous appeal to file a brief that includes a discussion of why potential appellate issues lack merit does not violate an indigent defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Facts:
- Ellis T. McCoy, an indigent individual, was convicted of abduction and sexual assault in a Wisconsin trial court and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
- An attorney was appointed to represent McCoy in his appeal.
- After reviewing the case, the appointed attorney concluded that an appeal would be 'wholly frivolous' and 'completely useless.'
- The attorney informed McCoy of his options, and McCoy authorized the attorney to file a brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
- The attorney filed a brief that raised four potential arguments for reversal but also stated that the appeal was frivolous and requested permission to withdraw.
- In the brief, the attorney deliberately did not include a discussion of why the potential issues lacked merit, arguing that doing so would be unethical and would violate his duty as an advocate.
Procedural Posture:
- McCoy's appointed counsel filed a brief in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals stating the appeal was frivolous but, citing constitutional concerns, refused to explain why the issues lacked merit.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals struck the brief and ordered counsel to submit a new one complying with Wisconsin Rule 809.32(1), which contains the discussion requirement.
- Instead of complying, McCoy's counsel filed an original action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the discussion requirement was unconstitutional.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state's highest court, rejected the challenge and upheld the constitutionality of the rule.
- The United States Supreme Court granted review of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state rule that requires appointed counsel seeking to withdraw from a frivolous appeal to submit a brief discussing why potential appellate issues lack merit violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of an indigent defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The Wisconsin rule requiring appointed counsel to explain why a client's appeal is frivolous is consistent with the federal constitution. This requirement furthers the objectives of Anders v. California by providing the appellate court with an additional tool to evaluate whether counsel has been diligent and whether the appeal is, in fact, frivolous. It ensures the court, not counsel, makes the ultimate determination of frivolity. The rule does not force counsel to act as an adversary to the client; rather, it requires counsel to fulfill a co-existing duty to the court. An attorney's ethical duty not to pursue frivolous arguments applies to both paid and appointed counsel, so this rule does not create unconstitutional inequality. By forcing counsel to articulate the reasons for their conclusion, the rule acts as a safeguard against a mistaken determination of frivolity and helps the court honor the constitutional rights of indigent defendants.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The Wisconsin rule unconstitutionally forces appointed counsel to brief the case against their own client, transforming the attorney from an advocate into an amicus curiae or an adversary. This violates the core principle of the adversarial system and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel devoted solely to the client's interests. The rule creates an impermissible inequality between indigent defendants and those who can afford counsel; a paying client can seek a second opinion if their lawyer finds an appeal frivolous, and no retained lawyer would ever file a brief actively undercutting their client's position. By compelling the defendant's own lawyer to argue against them, the state deprives the indigent appellant of the zealous advocacy the Constitution guarantees.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and builds upon the procedural framework established in Anders v. California for handling frivolous indigent appeals. By upholding the Wisconsin rule, the Court grants states more latitude to design procedures that prioritize judicial efficiency and ensure counsel's diligence. The ruling reinforces the principle that an attorney's duty as an 'officer of the court' can require actions seemingly at odds with their role as a pure client advocate, particularly once an appeal is deemed frivolous. It solidifies the distinction between counsel's duty at trial (to advocate zealously regardless of perceived merit) and on appeal (to refuse to prosecute a frivolous case).
Unlock the full brief for McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1