Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Law Of Criminal Defense

Criminal Law

: Law Of Criminal Defense

VT: Explanation of counsel not required for PCR Anders brief

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

In an Anders-post-conviction case, defense counsel was not required to explain what the deficiencies of the case are to get relieved, since there is no right to counsel in a post-conviction proceeding, which is a civil case. In re Bailey, 2009 VT 122 (No. 2007-454, December 24, 2009) (3-2): ¶ 9. An Anders-type explanation justifying counsel’s withdrawal is not required in the PCR context. The withdrawal prerequisites called for in Anders are designed to vindicate a defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, 386 U.S. at 744, and, as the United States Supreme Court has recognized, a petitioner has no constitutional right to counsel in civil PCR proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (rejecting notion that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions)...continue to full post

Full post as published by Law Of Criminal Defense on December 29, 2009 (boomark / email).