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

defendantattorneyappealappellant
attorneyappealappellant

Related Cases

Wilson P. Abraham Const. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 559 F.2d 250, 1977-2 Trade Cases P 61,625
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111
View Case »
Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 619 Pa. 586, 65 A.3d 361, 41 Media L. Rep. 2036
View Case »
People v. Winkler, 56 Cal.App.5th 1102, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 88, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,479, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,909
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440, 56 USLW 4520

Facts

Appellant Ellis T. McCoy, an indigent defendant, was convicted of abduction and sexual assault and sentenced to 12 years in prison. After his appointed counsel determined that further appellate proceedings would be frivolous, he filed a brief that both argued for reversal and stated that the appeal was without merit. The brief did not comply with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's requirement to include a discussion of why the appeal lacked merit, leading to the counsel's challenge of the constitutionality of this requirement after being ordered to submit a conforming brief.

Indigent and incarcerated, appellant Ellis T. McCoy fights an uphill battle to overturn his conviction.

Issue

Does the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule requiring appointed counsel to provide a discussion of why a criminal appeal is deemed frivolous violate the client's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?

The court upheld the requirement.

Rule

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rule requires appointed counsel to submit a brief that includes a discussion of why the appeal lacks merit, in addition to referencing anything in the record that might support the appeal, as established in Anders v. California.

A Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule essentially restates this requirement, but also requires that the brief include 'a discussion of why the issue lacks merit.'

Analysis

The court found that the discussion requirement serves to assure the appellate court that the attorney has thoroughly investigated the case and that the conclusion of frivolousness is valid. It emphasized that this requirement does not impair the rights of the defendant but rather enhances the protection of those rights by ensuring that the attorney has diligently searched for any potential claims.

The discussion requirement merely goes one step further than the minimum requirements stated in Anders, and satisfies the same objectives that those requirements serve: assuring the appellate court that the attorney has protected his or her indigent client's constitutional rights by diligently and thoroughly searching the record for any arguable claim that might support the appeal.

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's rule was upheld as constitutional, affirming that requiring an attorney to explain the basis for their conclusion that an appeal is frivolous does not violate the client's rights.

The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is Affirmed.

Who won?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court prevailed, as it upheld the constitutionality of the rule requiring appointed counsel to provide a discussion of why an appeal is deemed frivolous, reinforcing the duty of counsel to protect the rights of indigent defendants.

The court upheld the Rule, rejecting appellant's contentions that the Rule is inconsistent with Anders and that it forces counsel to violate his or her client's Sixth Amendment rights.

You must be