731 F.3d 876
9th Cir.2013Background
- Graves was convicted in California state court in 2003 of multiple felonies, with direct appeal affirmed and California Supreme Court denied review.
- Graves’ state habeas petition was denied; he did not pursue further state habeas review in California courts.
- Graves filed a federal 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in the Eastern District of California; the district court denied relief but issued a COA on five issues.
- Appointed appellate counsel under the Criminal Justice Act filed an Anders-style opening brief asserting no viable habeas issues and seeking withdrawal.
- Graves filed a pro se declaration opposing the Anders brief and seeking substitute counsel; the court denied substitution but allowed a pro se supplemental brief.
- The Ninth Circuit held that Rule 4-1(c)(6) requires an Anders-style opening brief as a condition to withdrawal in habeas appeals and affirmed withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anders procedure is required in habeas appeals. | Graves (via Graves) argued Anders is not required for habeas withdrawals. | Graves contends Anders procedure is applicable under Rule 4-1(c)(6). | Rule 4-1(c)(6) requires Anders-style filing for withdrawal. |
| Scope of Anders briefing in a § 2254 appeal. | Graves' counsel followed Anders framework to identify potentially supporting record material. | State argues Anders briefing is not constitutional requirement and may be unusual in habeas context. | Anders procedure is applicable and the briefing supports withdrawal. |
| Whether the Anders brief could cover uncertified issues. | Anders brief could address issues beyond COA-certified ones if necessary. | Limit briefing to COA-certified issues; uncertified issues should not be expanded. | Court declined to expand COA; affirmed withdrawal and did not expand COA to uncertified issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court 1967) (procedure for withdrawal when appeal wholly frivolous; require brief citing record)
- Finley v. Ayers, 481 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court 1987) (no constitutional right to counsel in collateral review; Anders not mandated in habeas)
- Bonin v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 1996) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 2254 proceedings)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court 2003) (COA standard; substantial showing required for appeal)
- Garduno v. Lewis, 365 F. App’x 820 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished disposition addressing Anders in habeas context)
- Valle v. Hedgpeth, 471 F. App’x 650 (9th Cir. 2012) (unpublished disposition; Anders-like considerations in habeas)