Robbins

Robbins v. Smith

Good Law
125 F.3d 831·97 Daily Journal DAR 12171·1997 WL 583710·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25992·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7550
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 23, 1997Nos. 95-56640, 96-55063California3,451 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hug, J.

Robbins was convicted in California state court of second-degree murder and grand theft auto. His petition for habeas corpus alleges that his rights under the United States Constitution were violated because of constitutional errors in his trial and also because of ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal. The district court held that Robbins was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal because of the failure of his appointed counsel to comply with the minimum requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The district court did not reach the exhausted issues set forth in Robbins’ petition concerning the alleged violation of his constitutional rights at the trial stage. The district court’s order would only require that Robbins be afforded an opportunity to appeal his conviction with the aid of effective counsel.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm the district court’s granting of Robbins’s habeas petition on the Anders issue. We remand, however, to the district court for consideration of the alleged constitutional violations at trial that have been properly exhausted in the state…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.