Austin v. United States
Decision Date | 31 October 1994 |
Docket Number | 103194 |
Parties | Anthony S. AUSTIN v. UNITED STATES. No. ___ |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Anthony Austin pleaded guilty to possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Thomas Cochran, who had been appointed as Austin's counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). That brief raised the issue of sentence computation, but concluded that no meritorious issues existed for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Austin's conviction and sentence. Cochran then informed Austin of the right to petition for certiorari. Austin responded with a request to file a petition on his behalf. In advance of the deadline for filing the petition, Cochran applied to this Court for leave to withdraw as counsel. We grant his application.
The Criminal Justice Act directs each District Court, with the approval of the judicial council of the Circuit, to implement "a plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a). The Fourth Circuit plan contains a provision governing the duration of service by appointed counsel. Specifically, it provides:
4th Circuit Rules App. II, Rule V 2.
Cochran argues that the Rule subjects him to conflicting obligations. On the one hand, the Rule imposes a mandatory duty to file a petition even if the legal arguments are frivolous. On the other hand, this Court's Rule 42.2 allows an award of damages or costs against him if he were to file a frivolous petition.
As a matter of pure text, Cochran's interpretation is correct. The Fourth Circuit Rule does require the actions of appointed counsel to comply with this Court's Rules, but only after the filing of a petition for certiorari. The Rule imposes a very clear mandate to file petitions at the client's request, evidenced by the command "shall prepare and file." The Fourth Circuit keeps plenty of company in mandating representation through the certiorari process, even when it may run counter to our Rules.1 Although the Fourth Circuit Rule provides a mechanism to seek relief from this obligation, Cochran is the first attorney to move for such relief,2 indicating that counsel feel encouraged or perhaps bound by these Rules to file petitions that rest on frivolous claims. These Circuit Rules may explain, in part, the dramatically increased number of petitions for certiorari on direct appeal from federal courts of appeals filed by persons in forma pauperis.3
Consistent with the Criminal Justice Act, we have provided by Rule for the payment of counsel appointed by this Court to represent certain indigent defendants. See Rule 39.7 (). But nothing in the Criminal Justice Act compels counsel to file papers in contravention of this Court's Rules against frivolous filings. And though indigent defendants pursuing appeals as of right have a constitutional right to a brief filed on their behalf by an attorney, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), that right does not extend to forums for discretionary review. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 616-617, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2446-47, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). Our Rules dealing with the grounds for granting certiorari, and penalizing frivolous filings, apply equally to pet...
To continue reading
Request your trial