New York Law Review

Tag: Anders Brief

  • People v. Mateo, 24 N.Y.3d 491 (2014): Appellate Counsel Withdrawal When Appeal Is Not Wholly Frivolous

    People v. Mateo, 24 N.Y.3d 491 (2014)

    Appellate counsel may not withdraw from representing a defendant if the appeal is not wholly frivolous, meaning there are non-frivolous arguments that could be raised on appeal.

    Summary

    Mateo pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 23 years’ incarceration, with no mention of post-release supervision (PRS). The Department of Correctional Services later added a five-year PRS term. Mateo, after learning of the PRS, filed a motion claiming her plea was defective because she was never informed about the PRS. The People consented to resentencing without PRS under Penal Law § 70.85. On appeal of the resentence, assigned counsel filed a Crawford motion to withdraw, arguing no non-frivolous issues existed. Mateo argued pro se that her sentence was illegal and that she received ineffective assistance. The Appellate Division granted counsel’s motion and affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Mateo’s claims were not wholly frivolous, counsel should not have been allowed to withdraw, and a de novo appeal was warranted.

    Facts

    Mateo pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter for a shooting. She received a determinate sentence of 23 years. Neither during the plea proceedings nor at sentencing was there any mention of post-release supervision (PRS). After incarceration, the Department of Correctional Services added a five-year PRS term to her certificate of commitment. Mateo learned of the PRS period from her attorney, who did not advise her whether she could challenge the PRS term on appeal. Her conviction was initially affirmed.

    Procedural History

    Following People v. Catu, Mateo filed a pro se motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, claiming her plea was defective due to the lack of information regarding PRS. The People consented to resentencing under Penal Law § 70.85 to remove the PRS term. Mateo appealed the resentence. Assigned counsel, after reviewing the file and citing People v. Boyd, filed a Crawford motion to withdraw, arguing there were no non-frivolous issues. Mateo filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing her sentence was illegal and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division granted counsel’s motion and affirmed the resentence. This appeal to the New York Court of Appeals followed.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division erred in granting appellate counsel’s Crawford motion to withdraw, where the defendant’s claims on appeal (the constitutionality of Penal Law § 70.85 as applied to her case and ineffective assistance of counsel) were not wholly frivolous.

    Holding

    Yes, because the defendant’s claims were not wholly frivolous at the time appellate counsel filed his Crawford motion, the Appellate Division should have denied appellate counsel’s motion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that under Crawford, appellate counsel may withdraw only if the appeal is “wholly frivolous,” as a defendant with a frivolous appeal has no right to have an advocate argue their case. The Court found that Mateo’s claims—the unconstitutionality of Penal Law § 70.85 as applied to her, and ineffective assistance of counsel—were not wholly frivolous. The Court emphasized that it was expressing no opinion on the ultimate merits of those claims, but that the claims warranted further review. Because counsel should not have been permitted to withdraw, the Court reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a de novo appeal. The Court cited People v. Stokes, People v. Pignataro, and People v. Catu in support of this remedy. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants receive adequate representation on appeal, particularly when there are potentially meritorious issues to be raised, such as the constitutionality of a statute or ineffective assistance of counsel.

  • People v. Crawford, 94 N.Y.2d 636 (2000): Adequacy of Anders Briefs for Indigent Criminal Appeals

    94 N.Y.2d 636 (2000)

    When assigned counsel determines an appeal is wholly frivolous, their ‘Anders’ brief must identify arguable issues, act as an advocate, and avoid factual errors to safeguard the indigent defendant’s right to appellate counsel.

    Summary

    Crawford, an indigent inmate convicted of aggravated harassment, appealed after his assigned counsel filed a no-merit brief, claiming no non-frivolous issues existed. Crawford submitted supplemental briefs highlighting potential errors, including being shackled during trial and an excessive sentence. The Appellate Division affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the counsel’s brief inadequate. The Court emphasized that assigned counsel must act as an advocate, identify arguable issues, and ensure factual accuracy in Anders briefs, not simply advise the court on the appeal’s merit. This case underscores the importance of diligent advocacy for indigent defendants on appeal.

    Facts

    Crawford, an inmate, was convicted of aggravated harassment for allegedly spraying a correction counselor with a mixture of excrement and urine. At trial, Crawford was shackled, a decision his counsel objected to. Another inmate testified that a different inmate committed the act. The assigned appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief, stating there were no non-frivolous issues to appeal.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Crawford. He appealed, and the assigned counsel filed a no-merit brief. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the ‘Anders’ brief submitted by assigned counsel adequately safeguarded Crawford’s right to appellate counsel, considering its lack of identified arguable issues and factual inaccuracies.

    Holding

    No, because the ‘Anders’ brief failed to identify potentially arguable issues, contained factual errors, and did not function as an advocacy document, thus failing to adequately safeguard the defendant’s right to appellate counsel.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the constitutional right of indigent defendants to effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Referring to Anders v. California, the Court reiterated that while counsel can seek to withdraw from a frivolous appeal, they must submit a brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” The Court found Crawford’s assigned counsel’s brief deficient because it failed to raise several potentially arguable issues, including the shackling of the defendant during trial, the court’s refusal to give a circumstantial evidence charge, and the possible excessiveness of the sentence. The Court noted the brief contained factual errors, such as misstating the crime charged and the facility where the incident occurred. The Court criticized counsel for appearing to “have found it sufficient to review the record in order to conclude and advise the court on the ultimate merit of defendant’s appeal” rather than acting as an advocate. The court stated, “assistance given must be that of an advocate rather than amicus curiae.” Because New York has repeatedly adhered to the protocol outlined in Anders, the court found no compelling reason to alter New York State’s “Anders” rule. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for a de novo appeal with newly assigned counsel. The People conceded the sentencing issue was not frivolous, further compelling reversal.

  • People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906 (1986): Right to Counsel on Appeal After Anders Brief Filed

    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.

  • People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606 (1979): Adequacy of Counsel for Indigent Criminal Appeals

    People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606 (1979)

    An indigent criminal defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel when their appointed appellate attorney submits a brief that merely summarizes the trial evidence, states the attorney’s opinion that there are no meritorious issues, lists points the defendant wants raised, but provides no legal argument supporting those points.

    Summary

    Federico Gonzalez was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the trial testimony, stated the attorney believed there were no valid appellate issues, and then listed four points Gonzalez wanted raised, without providing any legal argument. Gonzalez, acting pro se, requested new counsel, arguing the appointed attorney’s representation was inadequate. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Gonzalez was denied effective assistance of counsel because the “brief” was wholly deficient and failed to advocate on his behalf.

    Facts

    Gonzalez was convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to 25 years to life on each count. He requested and was granted assigned counsel for his appeal. The appointed attorney received the trial transcript but filed a brief only after being contacted by the Appellate Division clerk. The brief contained a lengthy summary of the trial testimony, noted some objections, and stated that the attorney felt there were no points to be raised on appeal. The brief then listed four points Gonzalez wanted presented, but contained no argument or discussion supporting any of them.

    Procedural History

    The Appellate Division appointed counsel for Gonzalez’s appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction based on the brief submitted by appointed counsel and the District Attorney’s submission. Gonzalez, acting pro se, sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an indigent criminal defendant is denied their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel when the appointed appellate attorney files a “brief” that summarizes the evidence, states there are no points to be raised, lists the defendant’s desired points, but advances no legal argument.

    Holding

    Yes, because the “assistance given must be that of an advocate rather than as amicus curiae,” and the attorney’s actions did not constitute single-minded counsel in the research of the law and marshalling of arguments on the defendant’s behalf.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that indigent criminal defendants have a right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal, meaning the assistance of an advocate, not merely a nominal representative. The court noted the attorney’s dilatory conduct, failure to consult with the defendant or trial counsel, and the perfunctory nature of the brief demonstrated a failure to meet the required standard. The court stated that paid appellate counsel would thoroughly study the record, consult with the defendant and trial counsel. The court found the brief’s lengthy, indiscriminate factual narrative and the absence of legal argument failed to aid either the defendant or the court. The Court stated, “Far from demonstrating conscientious examination of the record and the law, the papers before the Appellate Division on the motion for appointment of substitute counsel clearly portrayed the contrary.” The court quoted People v. Emmett: “appellate counsel not infrequently advance contentions which might otherwise escape the attention of judges of busy appellate courts, no matter how conscientiously and carefully those judges read the records before them.” The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded the case for a de novo consideration of the appeal. The court suggested the Appellate Divisions develop procedures for attorneys who consider an appeal frivolous and for the court that appointed them.