People v. Johnson

In this case we reject a concept which has crept into our judicial literature—the “arguable-but-unmeritorious” issue on appeal. We hold that an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.

Some historical perspective is necessary.

Prior to 1967, the procedure in California when appointed counsel could find no meritorious grounds for appeal was to file a “no merit” letter to that effect. (In re Nash (1964) 61 Cal.2d 491 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 205 , 393 P.2d 405 ].) Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ], found that practice to be constitutionally infirm. Supplementing Anders, People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 419 , 432 P.2d 21 ], held that counsel must set forth the facts and the applicable law and “argue all issues that are arguable.”…