Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Smith v. Robbins

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureAppellate CounselIndigent AppealsIneffective Assistance of CounselAndersWendeStricklandDouglas

Facts

Robbins was an indigent criminal defendant pursuing a first appeal as of right in California. His appellate counsel followed California's Wende procedure, filing a brief summarizing the procedural and factual history of the case rather than a merits brief or a motion to withdraw. The lower federal courts concluded that there were two arguable issues on direct appeal, but it was unclear whether they meant arguable in the Anders sense or nonfrivolous in the ordinary sense. One of the identified issues also may have been waived because Robbins failed to object at trial.

Issue

Whether California's Wende procedure for handling indigent defendants' allegedly frivolous direct appeals satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment, even though it differs from the procedure described in Anders. Also, if the procedure is valid, what standard governs Robbins' claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file a merits brief.

Rule

The Constitution does not require States to use the Anders procedure so long as the State's chosen procedure adequately safeguards an indigent defendant's right to appellate counsel by reasonably ensuring that nonfrivolous appeals receive counsel and a merits brief, while permitting the State to avoid subsidizing frivolous appeals. Where appellate counsel complies with a valid state procedure for determining frivolousness, a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a merits brief is governed by Strickland: the defendant must show objectively unreasonable failure to discover and raise a nonfrivolous issue and a reasonable probability that, but for that failure, he would have prevailed on appeal.

🔒

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.

Oregon adopts a procedure for indigent defendants' first appeals as of right. Appointed counsel who finds no nonfrivolous issue must file a brief summarizing the facts and procedure with record citations, remain as counsel, and the appellate court must independently review the record and order full merits briefing if it finds a nonfrivolous issue.

The defendant argues the procedure is unconstitutional solely because it does not require counsel to identify potential appellate issues in the brief. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the Constitution does not require exact compliance with Anders. A State may use a different procedure so long as it adequately and effectively protects the indigent defendant's first appeal by reasonably ensuring that nonfrivolous appeals receive counsel and a merits brief, while allowing the State to avoid subsidizing frivolous appeals. A procedure requiring counsel to remain, provide a record-based summary, and triggering court-ordered merits briefing when a nonfrivolous issue is found satisfies that standard.