Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealpublic defenderjudicial review
defendantlawyerappealwillpublic defenderjudicial review

Related Cases

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perry, 361 So.2d 594
View Case »
Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027
View Case »
Klaiber v. Orzel, 148 Ariz. 320, 714 P.2d 813
View Case »
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220, 159 Lab.Cas. P 61,017, 30 IER Cases 1692
View Case »
Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Associates, 11 P.3d 441, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 5710
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Betts v. Litscher, 241 F.3d 594

Facts

Keith Betts was convicted of armed robbery and expressed a desire to appeal his conviction. His assigned public defender, Elizabeth Stephens, concluded that the appeal would be frivolous but did not seek to withdraw properly. Instead, her supervisor informed the court that Betts had declined a no-merit report and chose to represent himself. Betts, however, repeatedly requested legal assistance, which was denied, leading to his conviction being affirmed without proper representation.

Betts peppered the court with requests for a lawyer to assist him. Every request was denied. The initial order, issued by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on August 14, 1989, shortly after Waitrovich's letter, stated that the public defender's office had 'properly exercised its discretion in declining representation' and that as a result 'new counsel will not be appointed for Betts.'

Issue

Did Keith Betts have a constitutional right to counsel on his direct appeal, and was that right violated?

Did Keith Betts have a constitutional right to counsel on his direct appeal, and was that right violated?

Rule

A defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal, and counsel may not unilaterally decide that an appeal is frivolous without judicial review.

A defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal, and counsel may not unilaterally decide that an appeal is frivolous without judicial review.

Analysis

The court determined that the public defender's office failed to follow proper procedures when they did not seek leave to withdraw and misrepresented Betts' choice to proceed pro se. Betts had consistently requested counsel, and the court found that he did not waive his right to representation. The lack of judicial evaluation of the appeal's merits further supported the conclusion that Betts was denied his constitutional right to counsel.

The court determined that the public defender's office failed to follow proper procedures when they did not seek leave to withdraw and misrepresented Betts' choice to proceed pro se.

Conclusion

The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case, requiring that Betts be granted a new appeal with the assistance of counsel.

The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case, requiring that Betts be granted a new appeal with the assistance of counsel.

Who won?

Keith Betts prevailed in the case because the court recognized that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel on direct appeal.

Keith Betts prevailed in the case because the court recognized that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel on direct appeal.

You must be