Penson v. Ohio
- Decided
- November 29, 1988
- Docket
- 87-6116
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 13,912 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · Smith v. Robbins
What later courts said
- holding that the prejudice standard articulated in Strickland is inapplicable where the petitioner was deprived of the assistance of counsel on appeal after counsel withdrew — Commonwealth v. Lantzy (1999)
- holding that the complete denial of counsel on direct appeal requires a finding of prejudice — Commonwealth v. Halley (2005)
- holding that the presumption of prejudice must be extended to the denial of counsel on appeal because the appeal is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding — Antonio Darnell Robinson v. John Ignacio, Warden (2004)
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
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), we gave a negative answer to this question:
“May a State appellate court refuse to provide counsel to brief and argue an indigent criminal defendant’s first appeal as of right on the basis of a conclusory statement by the appointed attorney on appeal that the case has no merit and that he will file no brief?” Brief for Petitioner in Anders v. California, O. T. 1966, No. 98, p. 2.
Cite this
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988)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.