## Facts

- David Barnes was convicted in New York state court of robbery and assault after a jury trial.
- Appointed appellate counsel reviewed Barnes’s suggested claims, rejected most as unhelpful or not reviewable because they were not based on the trial record, and identified several potential appellate issues.
- Counsel’s brief to the Appellate Division focused on three issues, including two suggested by Barnes; Barnes also submitted pro se briefs.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Barnes’s state collateral challenges were unsuccessful.
- Barnes sought federal habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on counsel’s refusal to raise all nonfrivolous issues Barnes requested.
- The district court denied relief, but the Second Circuit reversed, interpreting *Anders v. California* to require appointed counsel to present all nonfrivolous arguments requested by the client.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the Constitution requires court-appointed appellate counsel to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by a criminal defendant on direct appeal.
2. Whether counsel’s strategic selection of fewer issues, despite a client’s requests to raise additional nonfrivolous claims, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit.
- The Court held that appointed counsel on appeal has no constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant.
- The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s per se rule that the client must control which issues are pressed on appeal.
- The Court concluded that counsel’s performance, involving review of the client’s suggestions and strategic selection of issues for briefing and argument, did not violate the constitutional standard for effective assistance.

## Legal Principles

- An indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to compel appointed appellate counsel to press nonfrivolous issues the client requests when counsel, exercising professional judgment, decides not to present them.
- Fundamental case decisions (e.g., whether to take an appeal) are reserved to the defendant, but selection of appellate issues is a strategic decision entrusted to counsel.
- Effective appellate advocacy commonly involves “winnowing out” weaker arguments to focus on a limited number of stronger issues; requiring inclusion of every nonfrivolous claim may weaken the appeal by diluting stronger arguments.
- *Anders v. California* requires appointed counsel to act as an advocate and not withdraw from a nonfrivolous appeal, but it does not require counsel to present every nonfrivolous issue identified by the client.
- The omission of some nonfrivolous issues requested by the defendant, standing alone, does not establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Constitution permits appointed appellate counsel to exercise professional judgment in selecting which nonfrivolous issues to raise, and counsel is not ineffective merely for declining to brief every nonfrivolous claim the defendant wants presented.


Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983)