Simon v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 56 V.I. 990

In 1993, Carl Simon and two others burglarized a house on St. John; Ezekiel was killed during the ensuing confrontation and the three fled with valuables.
Simon was charged in 1994 with felony murder, robbery, and burglary; trial proceeded with defendant represented by Augustine Ayala despite repeated motions to replace him.
At trial (1995), Roach testified for the government, admitting prior perjury and alleging he received protection but not promises from the government for testimony; Ayala did not present opening statements or call witnesses.
Simon was convicted on all counts after a two-day trial and sentenced to life without parole on felony murder, plus concurrent terms for other counts.
Direct appeal of the conviction was initially affirmed; subsequent habeas petition under 5 V.I.C. § 1301 was denied in 2002 by the Territorial Court, and Appellate Division appointed Anders counsel who later moved to withdraw.
In 2007–2009, the Appellate Division remanded to determine whether a Certificate of Probable Cause (CPC) should issue; CPC issued in 2008, and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of habeas petition based on the Anders brief, which the district court later vacated on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction post-remand.	Simon asserts no jurisdiction after remand.	Government contends jurisdiction remained under remand record.	Court held jurisdiction existed; remand was a record remand and jurisdiction was retained.
Whether Anders procedures apply in habeas context.	Simon argues Anders procedures are inapplicable because no right to counsel in collateral review.	Government contends Anders procedures protect rights and are permissible in habeas context.	Anders procedures may be applied in habeas context; not error to do so.
Whether the Appellate Division properly used an Anders brief to deny the habeas petition.	Hermon-Percell's Anders brief was adequate on its face before CPC; merits should be reviewed only if nonfrivolous.	Appellate Division found Anders brief adequate and reviewed only those issues.	Appellate Division erred by relying on an Anders brief issued before CPC; post-CPC merits required fuller briefing.
Whether there were nonfrivolous issues warranting merits review after CPC.	CPC showed issues (improper information amendment, Brady claim, etc.) merited merits review.	Anders brief adequately disposed of issues, so no merits review was required.	There were nonfrivolous issues warranting merits review; case remanded for new counsel and full briefing on merits.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (counsel withdrawal in nonfrivolous direct-appeal cases; applicability in habeas context discussed)
United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000) (test for whether counsel may withdraw under Anders)
United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2009) (plenary review of Anders issues; standards for nonfrivolousness)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (right to counsel on direct appeal; not in collateral review emphasized in Anders context)
Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 653 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2011) (framework for reviewing appellate decisions and counsel withdrawal)
Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 273 F.2d 954 (3d Cir. 1954) (split-appeal jurisdiction considerations for appellate review)
Youla v. Warner Communications Co., 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (nonfrivolousness standard for appellate review)
Hypolite v. Virgin Islands, per curiam, 2009 WL 152319 (Virgin Islands, 2009) (record remand vs. case remand distinctions under 48 U.S.C. § 1613a)