Pennsylvania v. Finley

Supreme Court of United States
481 U.S. 551 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The procedural safeguards mandated by Anders v. California for appointed counsel on a first appeal as of right do not apply to counsel appointed for state post-conviction collateral proceedings, as there is no underlying federal constitutional right to counsel in such cases.

Facts:

In 1975, Dorothy Finley was convicted of second-degree murder in Pennsylvania and sentenced to life imprisonment.
After her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Finley sought relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act.
Pennsylvania law provided Finley with a state-created right to appointed counsel for this post-conviction proceeding.
Finley's appointed counsel for the post-conviction proceeding reviewed the trial record and consulted with her.
After his review, the counsel concluded there were no arguable bases for collateral relief.
Counsel informed the trial court of his conclusion in writing and requested permission to withdraw from the case.

Procedural Posture:

Dorothy Finley was convicted of second-degree murder in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, a state trial court.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed her conviction on direct appeal.
Finley filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court, which was denied.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that state law entitled Finley to appointed counsel, and remanded the case to the trial court.
On remand, appointed counsel found no meritorious claims, advised the court, and was permitted to withdraw; the trial court then dismissed the petition.
Finley, with new counsel, appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
The Superior Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the previous counsel's actions violated Finley's federal constitutional rights for failing to follow the procedures from Anders v. California.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Superior 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 the U.S. Constitution require that the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, for when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw from a frivolous direct appeal, also apply to counsel appointed pursuant to state law in post-conviction relief proceedings?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No, the U.S. Constitution does not require states to follow the Anders procedures in post-conviction proceedings. The procedures in Anders v. California were established as a prophylactic framework to protect the underlying constitutional right to counsel on a first appeal as of right, as established in Douglas v. California. The Court has never recognized a constitutional right to counsel for prisoners mounting collateral attacks on their convictions. Because the right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings is not constitutionally mandated but is instead a matter of state choice, the federal constitution does not dictate the specific procedures counsel must follow. The analyses in Ross v. Moffitt, which held there is no right to counsel for discretionary appeals, apply with even greater force to post-conviction review, which is a civil, collateral attack separate from the criminal proceeding itself. Neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clause requires the state to provide the full panoply of procedural protections in this context.

Concurrence - Justice Blackmun

Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the U.S. Constitution does not mandate the application of Anders procedures in this case. However, he wrote separately to emphasize that upon remand, the state court remains free to consider whether the appointed counsel's performance was adequate under Pennsylvania state law or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's prior remand order.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Justice Brennan argued that the Court should have dismissed the case because the state appellate court's decision rested on an independent and adequate state ground, namely the counsel's failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's original remand order. Substantively, he argued that even if the right to counsel is state-created, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require that the assistance be effective and not merely a 'meaningless ritual.' In his view, allowing counsel to advocate against their client's petition without notice or following protective procedures like those in Anders violates fundamental fairness. When a state grants a right, it must ensure that right is meaningful.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens dissented on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the state court's decision rested on an independent and adequate state ground. He contended that the state court was applying Pennsylvania law which was merely 'derived from' Anders, not directly applying federal constitutional law. He also criticized the Court's expectation that lower state appellate courts should be familiar with the 'plain statement' rule from Michigan v. Long, arguing that the Court should presume the decision was based on state law and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis:

This decision creates a significant distinction between the constitutional requirements for counsel on a first appeal as of right and those in subsequent collateral proceedings. It clarifies that a state-created right to counsel does not automatically import the full set of federal procedural protections associated with a constitutionally-mandated right. The ruling grants states substantial discretion and flexibility in designing their post-conviction review systems, allowing them to provide some assistance to inmates without being bound by the rigorous and potentially burdensome Anders framework. This reinforces the view of post-conviction relief as a proceeding separate and distinct from the original criminal trial and appeal, and it limits the scope of federal oversight in this area of state criminal procedure.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature