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

defendantattorneyappealhabeas corpusrespondent
defendantappealtrialrespondentjury trial

Related Cases

People v. Nash, 418 Mich. 196, 341 N.W.2d 439
View Case »
Howell v. State Bar of Texas, 843 F.2d 205
View Case »
Behrens v. Wedmore, 698 N.W.2d 555, 2005 S.D. 79
View Case »
Levine v. Committee on Admissions and Grievances of U. S. District Court for District of Columbia, 328 F.2d 519, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 218
View Case »
Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich.App. 619, 671 N.W.2d 64
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987

Facts

After respondent was convicted of robbery and assault in a New York state court, he was appointed counsel for his appeal. Respondent suggested several claims to his counsel, but most were rejected. The attorney focused on three claims in his brief, while respondent also submitted pro se briefs. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and after unsuccessful collateral proceedings, respondent filed for habeas corpus relief, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating that appointed counsel must present all nonfrivolous arguments requested by the client.

After respondent was convicted of robbery and assault in a jury trial in a New York state court, counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal.

Issue

Does defense counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a criminal conviction have a constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant?

We granted certiorari to consider whether defense counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a criminal conviction has a constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant.

Rule

An indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to compel appointed counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by the client if counsel, as a matter of professional judgment, decides not to present those points.

However, an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to compel appointed counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by the client, if counsel, as a matter of professional judgment, decides not to present those points.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the role of appointed counsel in the context of the defendant's rights and the professional responsibilities of attorneys. It emphasized that while defendants have the authority to make fundamental decisions regarding their cases, including whether to appeal, they cannot compel counsel to raise every issue they suggest. The Court noted that experienced advocates often must select the most promising issues for appeal, and that the appointed counsel in this case acted within the bounds of professional judgment.

The appointed counsel in this case did just that.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming that defense counsel does not have a constitutional obligation to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defense counsel, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the argument that counsel has discretion in selecting which issues to raise on appeal.

The appointed counsel in this case did just that.

You must be