ENTSMINGER v. IOWA.
No. 252.
Argued March 15, 1967.
Decided May 8, 1967.
David W. Belin, by appointment of the Court, 385 U. S. 804; argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Dón R. Bennett, Assistant Attorney General of Iowa, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lawrence F. Scalise, Attorney General.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, which was argued following Anders v. California, ante, p. 738, presents a similar problem in that we are here also concerned with the constitutional requirements which are binding on a State in the administration of its appellate criminal procedures with respect to convicted indigents - seeking initial review of their convictions. Petitioner, who was represented at trial by a court-appointed attorney, was convicted of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Iowa law. Shortly after the verdict was rendered, he requested the trial court to appoint different counsel to aid him in the preparation of a motion for new trial. Counsel was appointed, the motion was prepared and filed but the trial court overruled it. Upon petitioner’s application, the same attorney was appointed to represent him on appeal; counsel then prepared and filed a timely notice of appeal.
Iowa law provides alternate methods of appealing criminal convictions, the first method being an appeal on a “clerk’s transcript” which follows the notice of appeal as a matter of course. Under this procedure, the clerk of the trial court prepares and files a modified transcript of the proceedings below; such transcript contains only the Information or Indictment, the Grand Jury Minutes, the Bailiff’s Oath, Statement and Instructions, various, orders and judgment entries of the court, but does not contain the transcript of evidence nor the briefs and argument of counsel. This, practice is used in the absence of a request on the part of counsel for a plenary review-of the case. If such a request is made, the appellant is provided an appeal on a complete record of the trial, including not only those items included in the clerk’s transcript but in addition thereto, the briefs and argument of counsel.
Petitioner asked his appointed attorney to perfect a plenary .appeal and counsel gave notice therefor which, though belatedly filed, was allowed by the Iowa Supreme Court. However, counsel, apparently believing that the appeal was without merit, failed to file the entire record of petitioner’s trial although it had. been prepared by-the State and counsel had advised petitioner that he would file same. It is of note that counsel nevér moved the court for leave to withdraw from'-the case. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ordered the case submitted on the full record, briefs and arguments of counsel — and the record here fails to reveal any rescission of that order — the court took petitioner’s case into consideration on the clerk’s transcript alone as it was required to do under Iowa law. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Iowa, State v. Entsminger, 137 N. W. 2d 381 (1965). This was done despite the request of the petitioner a few days before the affirmance of his conviction, that the court issue an order commanding the trial court to “transmit the certified records” to the Supreme Court for its review. We granted certiorari, 384 U. S. 1000.
The Attorney General of Iowa in the utmost candor and with most commendable fairness concedes that petitioner has not received “adequate appellate review” and is entitled to an appeal free of constitutional doubt. We have examined the record carefully and agree that the clerk’s transcript procedure as applied, here “can hardly be labeled adequate and effective review of the merits of the proceedings culminating in a conviction.” He bases his conclusions in this regard upon the holding of the Iowa Supreme Court in Weaver v. Herrick, 258 Iowa 796, 140 N. W. 2d 178 (1966), where the court specifically stated:
“To afford an indigent defendant an adequate appeal from his conviction, the furnishing of a transcript, printed record and necessary briefs is required.” At 801-802, 140 N. W. 2d, at 181.
As we have held again and again, an indigent defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist him on his first appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), and appointed counsel must function in the active role of an advocate, as opposed to that of amicus curiae, Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674 (1958). In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956), the Court held that a State that provided transcripts on appeal only to those who could afford them was constitutionally required to provide a “means of affording adequate and effective appellate review to indigent defendants.” At 20. Again in Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252 (1959), the Court, in reaffirming the Griffin rule, held that “once the State chooses to establish appellate review in criminal cases, it may not foreclose indigents from access to any phase of that procedure because of their poverty.” At 257. In Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 (1961), the Court, once again considering the question, held that such principles are not limited to direct appeals but are also applicable to post-conviction proceedings. In that case the Court held that “the Fourteenth Amendment weighs the interests of rich and poor criminals in equal scale, and its hand extends as far to each.” At 714. Here there is no question but that petitioner was precluded from obtaining a complete and effective appellate review of his conviction by the operation of the clerk’s transcript procedure as embodied in Iowa law. Such procedure automatically deprived him of a full record, briefs, and arguments on the bare election of his appointed counsel, without providing,any notice to him or to the reviewing court that he had chosen not to file the complete record in the case. By such action “all hope of any [adequate and effective] appeal at all,” Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477, 485 (1963), was taken from the petitioner.
Since petitioner admittedly has not received the benefit of a first appeal with a full printed abstract of the record, briefs, and oral argument, as was his right under Iowa law, we do not reach the merits of his conviction here. We have discussed at some length the responsibility of both the appellate court and appointed counsel representing indigents on appeal in Anders v. California, supra, decided this day, and we need not repeat such here. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice, Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan join, concurs in the judgment and in the Court’s opinion, except as it refers to Anders v. California, a case which ' he thinks involves quite different issues.
Iowa Code §793.6 (1962).
Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 16, Iowa Code, Vol. II, p. 2716 (1962).
Id., Rule 15.
Indeed the Attorney General has moved the Supreme Court of Iowa to change its rule with respect to the clerk’s transcript system and his suggested changes and the responsibility of appointed counsel thereunder are now under advisement. We do not pass on the validity of the suggested procedure.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.