Legal Opinion
Smith v. Robbins
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 19, 2000No. 98-1037PublishedCited by 2,590 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
Not infrequently, an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant on appeal concludes that an appeal would be frivolous and requests that the appellate court allow him to withdraw or that the court dispose of the case without the filing of merits briefs. In Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), we held that, in order to protect indigent defendants’ constitutional right to appellate counsel, courts must safeguard against the risk of granting such requests in cases where the appeal is not actually frivolous. We found inadequate California’s procedure — which permitted appellate…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,590 opinions
- In Re SchulmanCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2008
- In re Giovanni S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Davila v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Commonwealth v. SantiagoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Ex Parte OwensCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
2,585 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.