People v. Wende
25 Cal. 3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071 (1979)
Rule of Law:
When appointed counsel for an indigent criminal defendant files an appellate brief that raises no specific issues, the appellate court has an independent constitutional duty to conduct a review of the entire record to determine for itself whether any arguable issues exist. This duty arises regardless of whether the defendant personally files a supplemental brief.
Facts:
- The defendant, Wende, took money from two victims.
- The victims testified at trial that Wende used a gun to take their money.
- Wende admitted to taking the money but testified that he did so through trickery, not by using a firearm.
- The central issue at trial was the credibility of the witnesses regarding how the money was taken.
Procedural Posture:
- A trial court found defendant Wende guilty of two counts of robbery with a firearm enhancement and sentenced him to prison.
- Wende appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal appointed counsel to represent Wende.
- Appointed counsel filed a brief summarizing the case but raised no specific issues, inviting the court to review the record.
- Counsel informed Wende that he could file his own supplemental brief, but Wende did not do so.
- The Court of Appeal, without conducting its own review of the entire record, concluded there were no arguable issues and dismissed the appeal.
- Appointed counsel, on behalf of Wende, petitioned the California Supreme Court for a hearing, which the court granted.
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 procedure established in Anders v. California require an appellate court to conduct an independent review of the entire trial record when an indigent defendant's appointed counsel submits a brief that raises no specific legal issues, even if the defendant does not file a supplemental brief?
Opinions:
Majority - Manuel, J.
Yes, the procedure established in Anders v. California requires an appellate court to conduct an independent review of the entire trial record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief raising no specific issues. The U.S. Supreme Court in Anders intended to increase protections for indigent appellants by mandating that 'the court—not counsel' must make the final determination of whether an appeal is 'wholly frivolous' after a 'full examination of all the proceedings.' This duty is triggered by the submission of counsel's brief and is not contingent on the defendant filing a personal brief. The purpose of counsel's brief is to assist the court in its own vigorous review, not to substitute for it. Furthermore, counsel is not required to move to withdraw so long as they have not described the appeal as frivolous and have informed the client of their right to have counsel relieved.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
No, the Anders procedure does not require an appellate court to independently search the entire record for error when competent appointed counsel has already done so and found none. This holding improperly forces the appellate court to abandon its traditional role as a neutral adjudicator and become an advocate for the defendant. Anders requires the appellate court to review the 'proceedings' to ensure counsel has performed their duties, not to re-review the 'record' for new issues. The court's duty to address arguable points is only triggered after the defendant has been given an opportunity 'to raise any points that he chooses.' This new requirement will overburden appellate courts and create an anomaly where a client might get a more thorough review if their lawyer finds no issues than if their lawyer argues weak ones.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'Wende review' in California jurisprudence, a significant procedural safeguard for indigent criminal defendants. It clarifies that the appellate court serves as a crucial backstop, ensuring that no potential errors are overlooked even when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. While strengthening the constitutional right to counsel on appeal, the ruling also places a substantial administrative burden on appellate courts, requiring them to actively scrutinize the entire record in such cases rather than passively accepting counsel's assessment. This precedent solidifies the court's role in protecting defendants' rights over judicial efficiency.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Wende (1979)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"