## Facts

- Charles Robert Anders, an indigent defendant, was convicted in California of felony possession of marijuana.
- Anders sought to appeal and obtained appointed counsel for his first appeal as of right.
- Appointed counsel reviewed the record, consulted with Anders, and informed the appellate court that the appeal had “no merit,” while also indicating Anders wished to file a brief himself.
- Anders requested substitute counsel; the appellate court denied the request.
- Anders filed a pro se brief; the State responded; Anders replied.
- The California District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
- Years later, Anders sought state habeas relief alleging denial of counsel on appeal; the intermediate court denied relief after stating it re-reviewed the record and found the appeal “without merit,” citing the state procedure allowing counsel to file only a no-merit letter.
- The California Supreme Court denied habeas relief without opinion.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the state procedure provided constitutionally adequate protection for an indigent defendant on a first appeal as of right when appointed counsel views the appeal as frivolous.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state to affirm an indigent defendant’s first appeal as of right when appointed counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous and merely advises the court there is “no merit,” without filing an advocate’s brief.
2. What procedures are constitutionally required when appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that denying an indigent appellant the services of an advocate on initial appellate review, while a paying appellant could obtain such advocacy, violates fair procedure and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court required that, if counsel finds the appeal wholly frivolous after a conscientious examination, counsel may seek to withdraw only by filing a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, serving it on the defendant, and allowing time for a pro se response.
- The appellate court must then independently review the entire record; if any arguable issue exists, the court must appoint counsel to argue the appeal; only if the case is wholly frivolous may the court permit withdrawal and dispose of the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- On a first appeal as of right, an indigent defendant is entitled to representation functioning as active advocacy, not the limited role of an amicus-type submission.
- Appointed counsel who believes an appeal is wholly frivolous must (1) conduct a conscientious review, (2) request leave to withdraw, and (3) submit a brief pointing to anything that might arguably support the appeal, with notice to the client and time to respond.
- The appellate court must conduct a full, independent examination of the proceedings before allowing withdrawal or disposing of the appeal as frivolous.
- If any issue is arguable on the merits, the state must provide counsel to brief and argue the appeal before decision.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated a procedure that allowed appointed counsel to withdraw based on a bare no-merit communication, and required an issues-identifying withdrawal brief plus independent judicial record review to ensure equal and fair appellate process for indigent defendants on their first appeal as of right.


Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)