Smith, Warden (CA) v. Robbins, Lee (01/19/2000)

By: Robin Terry, Medill News Service

Questions presented

(1) Did the 9th Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure, in which defense counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues for an appeal, violates the 6th Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err when it ruled that an asserted Anders violation required a new appeal? (3) Did the 9th Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. Lane, which prohibits retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's well-settled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?

Brief

Lee Robbins was convicted of second degree murder and grand theft auto in the 1988 shooting death of his former roommate. He was sentenced to 17 years to life in a California state prison on September 5, 1990. After the trial, in which Robbins defended himself, the public defender appointed to handle his appeal filed a brief setting out the facts of the case, but failed to include any possible grounds for appeal.

Robbins then appealed the case on his own, but his request was denied by the California Court of Appeals in 1991 and the California Supreme Court in 1992. A little more than a year later, Robbins filed a federal petition, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that numerous errors in his trial warranted appeal.

The U.S. District Court granted the petition on October 24, 1995, and ruled that Robbins court-appointed lawyer violated the 1967 Supreme Court holding in Anders v. California by failing to meet even the minimum duty to further a clients case after determining that his appeal was without merit.

The State of California appealed, claiming that the brief filed by the public defender met the requirements under Anders, and that, contrary to the district courts decision, the state-appointed attorney correctly determined that an appeal of the case would have been frivolous.

Robbins cross-appealed, saying that the district court failed to rule on his claims that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial in state court.

In September 1997, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts ruling in part, but remanded it to the lower court. The 9th Circuit agreed with the lower court that Robbins attorney failed to meet the requirements set forth in Anders. The court stated that public defenders must either appeal cases on behalf of their clients, or if they determine the case to be ""frivolous,"" they must file a written request for leave from the case that identifies any grounds for appeal in the clients record.

The court, however, sent the case back to the lower court to determine if, as Robbins alleges, constitutional violations actually took place during the trial and if the alleged errors create grounds for a new trial.

The state appealed, and on March 8, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and allowed Robbins to proceed in forma pauperis.

On Jan. 19, 2000, a divided Court reversed, holding that court-appointed attorneys can decline to file appeals for their clients if they think the appeal is frivolous.

The Court divided 5-4, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion for the conservative wing of the Court, including Justices Sandra Day O' Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The majority distinguished Anders, which had held in 1967 that a lawyer could not merely file a letter with the court saying there were no issues worthy of consideration.

Under California rules, lawyers who decide not to pursue the appeal are required to file a brief summarizing the procedural and factual history of their clients' case but do not have to identify any legal issue that arguably could support an appeal.

""The question is whether that departure is fatal,"" wrote Thomas. ""We hold that it is not.""

Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented, noting that California's procedures allowed the attorneys to remain too passive.