Criminal Appeal

Opinions "With Reasons Stated" Required on No-Issue Briefs (Anders) in Criminal Appeals

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court held that article VI, section 14, of the California Constitution requires opinions "with reasons stated" when court-appointed counsel files a no-issue brief under People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). This requirement includes addressing the defendant's contentions made in the pro se supplemental pleading permitted by Wende and Anders. Besides being required by the state constitution, Chief Justice George, writing for the four-justice majority, reasoned that opinions will serve the purposes of Anders/Wende by "promoting a careful examination of each case and a result supported by law and reason", will also provide guidance to litigants and courts in subsequent litigation, i.e. petitions for review and habeas corpus proceedings, and  "may ... persuade the defendant that counsel's conclusions are correct and thus prompt the defendant to abandon his or her efforts to obtain further judicial review."

So, is this a big deal? Not really for three reasons. First, many of California's appellate courts already write Wende opinions that comply with the requirements of Kelly. Second, in the vast majority of Wende/Anders appeals the defendant does not raise pro se contentions. Third, the opinion required by Kelly is no great burden. As the Court explained, "an extended discussion of legal principles" is not required, and "a recitation of each of the defendant's assertions" may not be required in every case. In terms of analysis of legal claims, all that may be required is identifying a contention and citing a case or giving a very succinct reason why the claim fails. Indeed, rather than remanding Kelly itself for such an opinion, the Supreme Court conducted the Wende/Anders review itself and wrote not quite two pages in describing the factual and procedural background and in giving reasons for rejecting appellant's pro se claims.

Justice Corrigan---a Court of Appeal Justice not so long ago, joined by Justices Baxter and Chin, concurred with the majority holding that an opinion with reasons is required, but dissented from the Court's "exercise of this Court's supervisory power to impose additional requirements on the Courts of Appeal." Justice Corrigan particularly "would not require them to describe any facts or procedural details that are not directly relevant to claims made by the defendant. I would certainly not encourage them to anticipate future habeas corpus petitions; in the vast majority of Wende appeals this would simply be a waste of time."

People v. Kelly, no. S133114 (Cal.Sup.Ct. filed 11/27/2006). J. Courtney Shevelson represented the appellant; Deputy Attorney General Kelly M. Croxton represented the state.

Cal.Ct.App.: Anders Does Not Apply to SVP Appeal

People v. Torres, no. C048309 (Cal.Ct.App. 3d Dist.; Nov. 8, 2005): in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Cantil-Sakauye, the Court held that Anders is inapplicable to appeals from commitment or recommitment orders in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) cases. The Court concluded that Anders itself only applies to a criminal defendant's first appeal of right and that an Anders-like procedure is not compelled by fundamental fairness.

This case may be destined for review. As noted in footnote 2, on page 5, of the opinion, review is pending in the California Supreme Court in cases in which the Courts of Appeal held that Anders does not apply to other California civil-commitment proceedings: Conservatorship of Ben C., no. S126664 (LPS Commitment) and People v. Smith, no. S133593 (MDO) (briefing stayed pending Ben C.)

Anders Brief for Anders

Couldn't resist this: in an unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal (4th Dist., Div. 1) affirmed a conviction and sentence today in an appeal in which counsel filed an Anders brief on behalf of an appellant named Anders. People v. Anders, no. D042670.