Swenson v. Bosler
| Decision Date | 13 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 759,759 |
| Parties | Harold SWENSON, Warden v. Clarence R. BOSLER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen. of Missouri, and J. Gordon Siddens and Howard L. MacFadden, Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
Petitioner seeks certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals holding invalid under the doctrine of Douglas v. State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, the State of Missouri's former practice of deciding direct criminal appeals by convicted indigent defendants without the appointment of appellate counsel. We grant the writ of certiorari and, for the reasons below, we affirm.
Under Missouri criminal practice, a convicted defendant's motion for new trial must set forth in detail his specific grounds for relief; and in general, a Missouri appellate court may not consider on appeal questions which were not first presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial. See State v. Mallory, 336 S.W.2d 383 (Mo.Sup.Ct.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 852, 81 S.Ct. 99, 5 L.Ed.2d 75; State v. Davis, 251 S.W.2d 610, 615—616 (Mo.Sup.Ct.); Mo.Sup.Ct.Rule Crim.Proc. 27.20, V.A.M.R. Prior to March 1, 1964, Missouri had no rule requiring appointment of appellate counsel for indigent defendants.* If trial counsel filed a motion for new trial and notice of appeal and then withdrew from the case, the Supreme Court of Missouri would require preparation of the transcript for appeal and then would consider the questions raised by the motion for new trial on the basis of pro se briefs by the defendant-appellant, or on no briefs at all. This is what occurred in this case. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this procedure violated respondent's Fourteenth Amendment rights, as defined in Douglas, even though respondent's trial counsel filed the notice of appeal and a motion for new trial which specifically designated the issues which could be considered on direct appeal. The assistance of appellate counsel in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court which defines the legal principles upon which the claims of error are based and which designates and interprets the relevant portions of the trial transcript may well be of substantial benefit to the defendant. This advantage may not be denied to a criminal defendant, solely because of his indigency, on the only appeal which the State affords him as a matter of right.
Petitioner contends that, since the District Court did not hold a hearing to determine whether respondent actually requested the appointment of appellate counsel, the record as it presently exists does not support the Court of Appeals' express conclusion that respondent did make such a request. Respondent included in the appendix to his petition to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rivers, Cr. 10411
...appeal. (Douglas v. People of State of California, supra, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811; see also Swenson v. Bosler (1967), 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33; Anders v. State of California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.) Under Douglas, defendants wh......
-
Peterson v. State of Missouri
...Court held that an indigent defendant was entitled to counsel on appeal. This holding was expanded in Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, at 260, 87 S.Ct. 996, at 997, 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967): But even if such request for the appointment of appellate counsel had not been made, we do not think its......
-
Brown v. Haynes
...to court-appointed counsel on appeal. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed. 2d 33 (1967). In addition, a defendant, whether indigent or not, also has the right to be properly advised of his right to a......
-
Folkes v. Nelsen
...appellate counsel's constitutional role "as a sword to upset the prior determination of guilt"); Swenson v. Bosler , 386 U.S. 258, 259, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967) (per curiam) ("The assistance of appellate counsel in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court which defi......
-
Rid of Habeas Corpus? How Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Has Endangered Access to the Writ of Habeas Corpus and What the Supreme Court Can Do in Maples and Martinez to Restore it
...Douglas, 372 U.S. at 356). 274. Id. at 619. 275. Id. at 619-20. 276. Id. at 620 (explaining the Court's holding in Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 (1967), with, "[A] transcript and motion by trial counsel are not adequate stand-ins for an appellate lawyer's review of the record and legal 27......
-
Involuntary Commitment of People With Mental Retardation: Ensuring All of Georgia's Citizens Receive Adequate Procedural Due Process - Laura W. Harper
...(1972). 204. Id. at 96-97. 205. Id. at 94. 206. Id. at 95. 207. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 (1966). 208. See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967). 209. 386 F. Supp. 378 (M.D. Ala. 1974). 210. Id. at 397. 211. Id. at 396. 212. Id. 213. 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). 214. Id. ......