No. 23-6677

Michael Isidoro Sanchez v. Ryan Thornell, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-02-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: anders-review appeals appellate-procedure civil-rights colorable-claims due-process indigent-defense of-right-appeal post-conviction-review right-to-counsel smith-v-robbins
Latest Conference: 2024-05-09 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

This case raises an issue of nationwide importance concerning the vital role that courts Bnders review per the "two interrelated tasks" in achieving the "obvious goal of Anders which is to protect the Right to Counsel in the First appeal as OF-right from being swallowed up for the Supreme Court to evaluate an of-right Post Conviction Relief (PER) procedure For pleading defendants which completely departs from the obvious goal of Anders by depriving pro per indigent defendants the equal protection of a courts Anders reviews and amerits brief Fora nontcivelous appeals

1. Did the Ninth Circuit err by Following Chavez v. Graovich, 4aFHth LOG (9th Cire 2028) to decide that "the state appellate court could have ceasonebly determined" under 2% U.S.C, % 225441 "that Arizona's of-pight PCR procedure Satisfied Anders and its progeny":

A) where, Arizona Law does not raquire a courts Anders review and finding of whether the case is frivolous, at all, bub only an adjudication of the claims fatsed in the pro per petition for when counsel submits an Anders brief alleging "ne colerable claims'; and

B) inaway thet contlieds with Lammiav. Batkel, WS Pdd £62 (Aciz. 1996) on the question of whether "advisoty counsel" is or is not required to hciet viable issues found in the pro pec petitions

2. Did the Supreme Court depart from the "obvious goal of Anders" enunciated in Smith uv. Bobbing, 58S 5.254, 218 (2000) to permit state procedures that may except a courts Anders review and finding of whether a case is frivolous in any first appeal as of-ctight on the basis that:

A) a single #ier review of the appellate record for Ccolorable claims, net merely arguable claims, is conducted by counselj and

B) counsel does not withdtaw atter filing an Anders brief, but temains as "advisory counsel" and available to brief Viabbe issues found Only in the pro. pet patitiog.

C) the appealis a PCR proceeding for pleading defendants as opposed to a direct appeal for trial defendants.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Ninth Circuit's reliance on Chavez II was erroneous

Docket Entries

2024-05-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-04-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2024.
2024-03-29
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024.
2024-02-07
Waiver of right of respondent Ryan Thronell, et al. to respond filed.
2024-01-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 7, 2024)

Attorneys

Michael Isidoro Sanchez
Michael Isidoro Sanchez — Petitioner
Ryan Thronell, et al.
Andrew Stuart ReillyOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent