Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Anders v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselFirst Appeal as of RightIndigent Defendantsappointed counselindigent appealfirst appeal as of rightfrivolous appeal

Facts

Petitioner was convicted of felony possession of marijuana and sought a first appeal, for which the California District Court of Appeal appointed counsel. After reviewing the record and consulting with petitioner, appointed counsel concluded the appeal had no merit and informed the court by letter that he would not file a brief; he also advised that petitioner wished to file his own brief. Petitioner's request for another lawyer was denied, and he proceeded pro se while the State responded; the appellate court then affirmed the conviction. Years later, petitioner sought habeas relief arguing that he had been deprived of counsel on appeal, but the California courts denied relief.

Issue

Whether a State satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment's requirements of fair process and substantial equality on an indigent defendant's first appeal as of right when appointed counsel, after concluding the appeal lacks merit, files only a no-merit letter and withdraws, leaving the defendant to proceed pro se while the court independently reviews the record.

Rule

On an indigent defendant's first appeal as of right, appointed counsel must act as an active advocate, not merely as amicus curiae. If counsel conscientiously concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous, counsel may request permission to withdraw, but the request must be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the indigent must receive a copy and time to raise any points, and the court must then independently examine the entire proceeding to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. If the court finds any legal point arguable on its merits, it must provide counsel to argue the appeal before decision.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Marco Silva was convicted of burglary and took his first appeal as of right. Court-appointed appellate counsel reviewed the transcript, concluded there were no viable issues, and sent the appellate court a short letter stating the appeal had "no merit"; the court then reviewed the record on its own and affirmed.

Was the procedure constitutionally adequate for Marco's first appeal as of right?

Explanation. The majority held that a bare no-merit letter is insufficient on an indigent defendant's first appeal as of right. Counsel must function as an active advocate, not merely as amicus curiae. If counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous after conscientious examination, counsel may seek to withdraw only by filing a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court then conducts its own full review.