People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906 (1986)
When an appellate court identifies nonfrivolous issues in a criminal defendant’s appeal after assigned counsel has filed an Anders brief, the court must assign new counsel to provide effective assistance, as neither the court’s review nor a pro se brief can substitute for the advocacy of counsel.
Summary
Casiano was convicted in trial court, and his assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, claiming the appeal was frivolous, without consulting Casiano or analyzing the record. The Appellate Division, reviewing Casiano’s pro se brief, identified appealable issues but affirmed the conviction without assigning new counsel. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Casiano was deprived of effective assistance of counsel on appeal. The court reasoned that once the Appellate Division found nonfrivolous issues, it was obligated to assign new counsel to provide single-minded advocacy, something neither the court’s review nor Casiano’s pro se brief could provide.
Facts
Casiano was convicted after trial. His assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting the appeal lacked merit. Counsel did not consult with Casiano before filing the brief. Counsel did not conduct a thorough analysis of the trial court record to identify potential issues for appeal.
Procedural History
The assigned counsel filed an Anders brief with the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reviewed Casiano’s pro se brief. The Appellate Division found appealable issues in the record. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without assigning new counsel. Casiano appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division’s failure to assign new counsel to a criminal defendant after discovering nonfrivolous issues in his appeal, following the filing of an Anders brief by assigned counsel, deprived the defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
Holding
Yes, because once the Appellate Division identified nonfrivolous issues, the defendant was entitled to the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel, which neither the court’s review nor a pro se brief could provide.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on People v. Gonzalez, which established that neither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the advocacy of appellate counsel. The Court emphasized the importance of effective assistance of counsel at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including the first appeal as of right. The court also cited Evitts v. Lucey and Anders v. California, underscoring the constitutional right to effective representation on appeal. The Court criticized the District Attorney for failing to address or distinguish these controlling precedents. The court stated, “neither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel.” The court’s decision highlights the crucial role of appointed counsel in identifying and presenting potentially meritorious arguments on appeal, even after initial counsel deems the appeal frivolous. This ensures that indigent defendants receive a fair and meaningful review of their convictions.