Smith v. Robbins

United States Supreme Court
528 U.S. 259 (2000)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The procedure for handling potentially frivolous indigent appeals outlined in Anders v. California is a prophylactic measure, not a constitutional command. States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as they adequately safeguard a defendant's constitutional right to appellate counsel by reasonably ensuring the appeal is resolved based on its merits.

Facts:

In 1990, a California jury convicted Lee Robbins of second-degree murder and grand theft of an automobile.
Robbins was sentenced to 17 years to life in prison.
After electing to represent himself at trial, Robbins was appointed counsel for his appeal.
Robbins' appointed counsel concluded that an appeal would be frivolous.
Counsel filed a brief with the California Court of Appeal that complied with the state's 'Wende' procedure, which involved summarizing the procedural and factual history of the case but not raising any specific legal issues or requesting to withdraw.
Robbins was informed of his right to file his own supplemental brief and did so, raising several issues including a claim of insufficient evidence.

Procedural Posture:

The California Court of Appeal reviewed the entire record, agreed with counsel's assessment that the appeal was frivolous, and affirmed Robbins' conviction.
The California Supreme Court denied Robbins’ petition for review.
Robbins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The District Court granted the writ, finding that counsel's failure to follow the Anders procedure constituted deficient performance and applying a presumption of prejudice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Anders procedure was the exclusive constitutional method and that the 'Wende' procedure was therefore invalid.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit'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 California's 'Wende' procedure, which permits appellate counsel to file a brief summarizing the case history without identifying arguable issues, violate an indigent defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of appellate counsel because it differs from the procedure outlined in Anders v. California?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

No. California's 'Wende' procedure does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to appellate counsel. The procedure set forth in Anders v. California is a prophylactic framework, not an independent constitutional command that States must follow. States have wide discretion to experiment with solutions to difficult policy problems, and the 'Wende' procedure is a constitutionally adequate alternative. It provides the minimum safeguards by ensuring both counsel and the court review the record for any non-frivolous issues, thereby ensuring the appeal is resolved in a way related to its merit. A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under such a valid state procedure is not entitled to a presumption of prejudice and must satisfy the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington: demonstrating that counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability the appeal would have been successful but for counsel's errors.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. California's 'Wende' procedure violates a defendant's constitutional rights. The majority effectively overrules both Anders and Penson v. Ohio by adopting a new standard so broad that the procedures found inadequate in those cases would now be permissible. The majority also wrongly rejects the reasoning of McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., which recognized the importance of requiring counsel to articulate the reasons for concluding an appeal is frivolous. The process of writing out legal arguments provides a crucial safeguard against mistaken conclusions, a protection that the 'Wende' brief—which only summarizes facts—completely lacks. This procedure fails to provide the 'substantial equality' with a represented defendant that Anders requires.

Dissenting - Justice Souter

Yes. The 'Wende' procedure is unconstitutional because it fails to ensure representation by counsel in the adversarial role demanded by the Constitution. Anders contemplates an advocate's partisan review of the record to identify the best possible issues, followed by a court's disinterested review. The 'Wende' procedure eliminates the crucial first step, forcing the appellate court into an inquisitorial role and providing no affirmative indicator that an advocate has been at work. When a lawyer files a 'Wende' brief, they abandon the role of advocate for that of an amicus curiae, which amounts to a constructive denial of counsel. In such cases, prejudice should be presumed, and the defendant should not be required to satisfy the Strickland test.

Analysis:

This decision marks a significant shift away from a uniform national standard for handling frivolous indigent appeals, granting states considerable flexibility under principles of federalism. By holding that the Anders procedure is not the exclusive constitutional method, the Court opened the door for states to innovate. Critically, the ruling heightens the burden on defendants claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in this context. Requiring defendants to satisfy the stringent two-part Strickland test, including showing actual prejudice, makes it substantially more difficult to succeed on such claims than under the previous regime where prejudice was often presumed.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Smith v. Robbins (2000)

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