Anders v. California
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Smith v. Robbins permits states to adopt other procedures that adequately protect the right to appellate counsel. Four additional entries describe state courts choosing their own appellate procedures.
87,193 later cases cite Anders v. California; 1,150 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Anders v. California?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Court refused to extend Anders procedures to state postconviction proceedings merely because state law supplied appointed counsel.
Pennsylvania v. Finley · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
First, we reject respondent’s argument that the Anders procedures should be applied to a state-created right to counsel on postconviction review just because they are applied to the right to counsel on first appeal that this Court established in Douglas.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Anders review to the issues covered by an adequate counsel brief, unless the decision below suggested an omitted issue requiring review.
United States v. James R. Wagner · Seventh Circuit · filed
The intermediate position, which we now adopt, is for the appellate court to be guided in reviewing the record by the Anders brief itself, provided that the brief is adequate on its face. (If it is not, we shall deny the Anders motion and either direct counsel to file a new brief or discharge counsel and appoint a new lawyer for the defendant.) If the brief explains the nature of the case and fully and intelligently discusses the issues that the type of case might be expected to involve, we shall not conduct an independent top-to-bottom review of the record in the district court to determine whether a more resourceful or ingenious lawyer might have found additional issues that may not be frivolous. We shall confine our scrutiny of the record to the portions of it that relate to the issues discussed in the brief. If in light of this scrutiny it is apparent that the lawyer’s discussion of the issues that he chose to discuss is responsible and if there is nothing in the district court’s decision to suggest that there are other issues the brief should have discussed, we shall have enough basis for confidence in the lawyer’s competence to forgo scrutiny of the rest of the record.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Court held that Anders supplies a nonexclusive procedure and states may adopt alternatives that adequately safeguard appellate counsel rights.
Smith v. Robbins · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The procedure we sketched in Anders is a prophylactic one; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant’s right to appellate counsel.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Anders procedures to appeals terminating parental rights.
N.S.H. v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
Accordingly, we decline to extend the Anders procedure to termination of parental rights proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Anders briefing procedures to motions for a new trial in criminal proceedings.
People v. Thurman · Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District · filed
For all of these reasons, we decline to extend Anders/Wende to motions for new trial in criminal proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Anders independent review to a ward’s appeal from a guardianship appointment.
In re Guardianship of McIntire · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District · filed
This case is an appeal by a ward from a guardianship appointment. ... We have found no authority supporting the proposition that Anders applies in this case. Therefore, we have not undertaken an independent review of the record. We affirm the trial court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The court criticized Anders briefing as placing counsel in an unnatural posture and adopted an alternative procedure in which counsel remains on the appeal.
State v. Balfour · Supreme Court of Oregon · filed
Moreover, as was recognized in State v. Horine, supra, 64 Or App at 541, and so vividly illustrated in McCoy (where the Supreme Court itself characterized counsel’s Anders brief as “schizophrenic,” 486 US at 432), the rules respecting Anders briefs require counsel to take an unnatural, if not unethical, posture.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Anders v. California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace