## Facts

- Lee Robbins, an indigent defendant, was convicted in California state court of second-degree murder and grand theft of an automobile.
- Robbins represented himself at trial but received appointed counsel for his direct appeal.
- Appointed appellate counsel reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous issues, and filed a brief under California’s *Wende* procedure rather than an *Anders* brief.
- Under *Wende*, counsel does not label the appeal frivolous, does not move to withdraw, files a brief not arguing the merits, and offers to brief any issues the court directs.
- The California Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed; the California Supreme Court denied review.
- Robbins sought federal habeas relief, arguing ineffective assistance because the *Wende* filing did not identify potential issues as *Anders* contemplates.
- A federal district court granted relief, found arguable issues, and presumed prejudice from the deviation from *Anders*; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, treating *Anders* as constitutionally mandatory.

## Issues

1. Whether *Anders v. California* prescribes the exclusive constitutionally permissible procedure for appointed counsel who concludes an indigent defendant’s appeal is frivolous.
2. Whether California’s *Wende* procedure is constitutionally inadequate as a substitute for the *Anders* model.
3. Whether ineffective assistance claims in this setting require a presumption of prejudice or are governed by *Strickland v. Washington*’s prejudice requirement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that *Anders* is not the only constitutionally acceptable procedure; states may adopt different frameworks if they adequately protect the right to appellate counsel and meaningful review.
- The Court held California’s *Wende* procedure is facially constitutionally adequate.
- The Court held ineffective assistance claims in this context are governed by *Strickland*; prejudice is not presumed solely because counsel did not follow *Anders* formalities.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Douglas v. California*, states must provide counsel to indigent defendants on their first appeal as of right to ensure substantial equality.
- *Anders v. California* describes one permissible method for handling appeals that counsel believes are frivolous, including counsel’s submission identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal and independent court review.
- The Constitution does not require states to copy *Anders*; the test is whether the state’s overall procedure adequately protects the indigent appellant’s right to counsel and to a meaningful appeal.
- California’s *Wende* process is sufficient where counsel reviews the record, remains available to brief issues if directed, and the appellate court independently examines the full record to guard against overlooked nonfrivolous issues.
- Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims are evaluated under *Strickland*: deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different result absent the deficiency; no per se prejudice rule applies based on nonuse of *Anders*.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected the view that *Anders* is constitutionally exclusive, upheld California’s *Wende* framework as facially adequate for frivolous-appeal situations, and required defendants alleging ineffective appellate representation in this setting to satisfy *Strickland*, including proof of prejudice.


Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000)