Citation network
Smith Vs. Robbins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 05, 1999
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 259 (1999) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Smith, Warden V. RobbinsSearch
-
court allow him to withdraw or that the court dispose of the case without the filing of merits briefs. In Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and set forth an acceptable procedure. California adopted a new procedure in People v. WendeSearch
-
applied a presumption of prejudice. The Ninth Circuit agreed, concluding that Anders, together with Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires, this Court placed the case within a line of precedent beginning with Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 12 , and continuing with Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and the Ninth Circuit's view runs contrary to this Court's established practice. In McCoy v. CourtSearch
-
even though that variation, in at least one respect, provided less effective advocacy for an indigent. In Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
that could adequately vindicate the right to appellate counsel announced in Douglas. Similarly, in Penson v. OhioSearch
-
Cruzan v. DirectorSearch
-
inadequate in Anders, and also in finding inadequate the procedures that the Court reviewed in Eskridge v. WashingtonSearch
-
Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U. S. 214 , and Lane v. BrownSearch
-
to withdraw and then decide the appeal without appointing new counsel. Such a procedure was struck down in Pen son v. OhioSearch
-
The Court addresses not what is prudent or appropriate, but what is constitutionally compelled. United States v. CronicSearch
-
strong those issues are. The proper standard for evaluating Robbins' claim on remand is that enunciated in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
a defendant's right to appellate counsel. I A Under California's new procedure, established in People v. WendeSearch
-
P. 2d 1071, 1074-1075 (1979), and followed in numerous cases since then, see, e. g., People v. RowlandSearch
-
People v. HackettSearch
-
he contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the prosecutor violated Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
assistance of appellate counsel because his appellate counsel's Wende brief failed to comply with Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
s habeas petition, since he filed his petition before that Act's effective date of April 24, 1996. See Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
with the District Court on the Anders issue. In the Ninth Circuit's view, Anders, together with Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
reviewed the four claims in his pro se brief and affirmed, finding no error (or no prejudicial error). People v. AndersSearch
-
that the Wende procedure is unconstitutional because it differs from the Anders procedure. See Delgado v. LewisSearch
-
Davis v. KramerSearch
-
Id., at 741. We placed the case within a line of precedent beginning with Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
appeals by indigents with appointed counsel. Anders, supra, at 741-743. We relied in particular on Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
Constitution does not, however, require States to create appellate review in the first place. See, e. g., Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
U. S. 600 , 606 (1974) (citing McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
U. S. 684 , 687 (1894)). 6The same was true in Ellis itself. See Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
the broad bounds of the Constitution, to experiment with solutions to difficult questions of policy. In McCoy v. CourtSearch
-
likely to rule against the indigent than if the court had simply received an Anders brief. In Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
that the Constitution itself does not compel the Anders procedure, we suggested otherwise. Similarly, in Penson v. OhioSearch
-
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, to experiment with solutions to difficult problems of policy. In Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 554 , 564 (1967) (citing, inter alia, Griffin, supra). Accord, Medina v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Amendment and some from the Due Process Clause of that Amendment.''' Evitts, supra, at 403 (quoting Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Arizona v. ClarkSearch
-
compared to the legal assistance that a defendant with paid counsel would receive, McCoy v. CourtSearch
-
see also United States v. CronicSearch
-
cf. Nix v. WhitesideSearch
-
Ellis v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial