Feggans

A jury found defendant guilty on two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for the term provided by law. Defendant appealed, and upon his request the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel informed defendant and the court by letter that after tho'roug-h' study • of' the" record, discussion with defendant and hi's trial counsel," and research *446 on the legal points raised, he concluded there was no merit in the appeal. He requested and was given permission to withdraw from the ease. (See In re Nash, 61 Cal.2d 491, 495 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 205 , 393 P.2d 405 ].) The court gave defendant 30 days in which to file a brief. He filed an opening and a closing brief and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an opinion certified for nonpublication under rule 976, California Rules of Court. (People v. Feggans, 1 Crim. 5220.) Defendant filed a petition for hearing in propria persona, which we granted because it appeared that defendant had been denied the assistance of counsel on appeal required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ], We…

I dissent.

I cannot agree that, under state law, it should be held that the right to counsel at a lineup, announced in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 ], and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 ], should not apply to cases pending when these decisions were announced. The rule of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ], holding such decisions are purely prospective is not binding on state courts, and should not, in my opinion, be followed here.

I have already expressed my disagreement with the majority of this court over their determinations on the issue of retroactivity of criminal eases. (See my dissents in People v. Rollins, 65 Cal.2d 681, 693 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 293 , 423 P.2d 221 ] and People v. Rivers, 66 Cal.2d 1000, 1005 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 429 P.2d 171 ].)

This is another in a whole series of cases dealing with the troublesome problem of the effective date of criminal decisions relating to constitutional rights. For many years the high court had held that its decisions in this field were wholly retroactive. (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799 , 83 S.Ct. 792 ,…