Anders v. California
- Decided
- May 8, 1967
- Docket
- 98
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 87,848 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · Smith v. Robbins
What later courts said
- holding that a refusal of appointed counsel to properly pursue an appeal, coupled with the refusal of the court to appoint substitute counsel, amounted to a denial of fundamental due process — Commonwealth v. Lantzy (1999)
- holding that an attorney who believes appeal would be frivolous must inform the court and file a brief identifying arguably appealable matters in the record — State v. Calabaza (2011)
- holding that “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should advise the court and request permission to withdraw” — People v. Mancilla (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are here concerned with the extent of the duty of a court-appointed appellate counsel to prosecute a first appeal from a criminal conviction, after that attorney has conscientiously determined that there is no merit to the indigent’s appeal.
After he was convicted of the felony of possession of marijuana, petitioner sought to appeal and moved that the California District Court of Appeal appoint counsel for him. Such motion was granted; however, after a study of the record and consultation with petitioner, the appointed counsel concluded that there was no merit to the appeal. He so advised the court by letter and, at the same time, informed the court that petitioner wished [*740] to file a brief in his own behalf. At this juncture, petitioner requested the appointment of another attorney. This request was denied and petitioner proceeded to file his own brief pro se. The State responded and petitioner filed a reply brief. On January 9, 1959, the District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the conviction, People v. Anders, 167 Cal. App. 2d 65, 333 P. 2d 854.
Cite this
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.