Austin v. United States
| Decision Date | 31 October 1994 |
| Parties | AUSTIN v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
ON MOTION OF THOMAS N. COCHRAN FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
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 (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:
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, supra, that right does not extend to forums for discretionary review. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 616-617 (1974). Our Rules dealing with the grounds for granting certiorari, and penalizing frivolous filings, apply equally to petitioners using appointed or retained counsel. We believe that the Circuit councils should, if necessary, revise their Criminal Justice Plans so that they do not create any conflict with our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
... ... State, 662 So.2d 566 (Miss.1995)). Furthermore, where states have incorporated appellate review as an integral part of the system for final adjudication of ... Neither the protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution nor the examples found in sister states which allow only discretionary ... Id. at 587-88, 102 S.Ct. at 1301-02. More recently, the United States Supreme Court, in Austin v. United States, 513 U.S. 5, 115 S.Ct. 380, 130 L.Ed.2d 219 (1994), held that appointed counsel is ... ...
-
Sade C., In re
... ... 684, 687-688, 14 S.Ct. 913, 914-15, 38 L.Ed. 867 (hereafter McKane ), the United States Supreme Court held that, so far as the United States Constitution was concerned, an "appeal ... Finally, in Austin v. U.S. (1994) 513 U.S. 5, 115 S.Ct. 380, 130 L.Ed.2d 219 (per curiam ), the court granted ... ...
-
People v. Smith
... ... 1 Based upon relevant authority from the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court, we conclude Anders and Wende do not ... at pp. 739, 741-742, 744-745[, 87 S.Ct. 1396]; see also Austin v. U.S., [(1994)] 513 U.S. 5, ___[, 115 S.Ct. 380, 130 L.Ed.2d 219].) They do not extend to an ... ...
-
In re Taijha H.-B.
... ... -3 (c), on its face, violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. I The record reveals the following relevant facts, as found by the trial court ... See, e.g., Austin v. United States , 513 U.S. 5, 8, 115 S. Ct. 380, 130 L. Ed. 2d 219 (1994) (discretionary ... ...
-
The context of ideology: law, politics, and empirical legal scholarship.
...Appendix A Cases in Recoding Sample (Chronological Order) L.Ed.2d cite Case Name and U.S. Reports Cite 130/0219 Austin v. United States, 513 U.S. 5 (1994). 130/0454 Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106 (1994). 130/1024 Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (19......
-
Appeals
...a petition for discretionary review, despite the client’s wishes, where the petition would be frivolous. [ See Austin v. United States , 513 U.S. 5 (1994) (even court-appointed counsel can be sanctioned for filing frivolous certiorari petition); 3d Cir. LAR 109.2(b) (appointed counsel is ob......