green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
17.9 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Stewart
(3×)
the assistance of appellate counsel in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court ... may well be of substantial benefit to the defendant. this advantage may not be denied to a criminal defendant, solely because of his indigency ....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scot Gaither v. Tim Lane
That said, when a defendant’s “indigency and desire to appeal are manifest,” we can’t “infer[] from [a] defendant’s failure specifically to request appointment of appellate counsel that he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the appointment of appellate counsel.” Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clinton Folkes v. Warden Nelsen
Evitts, 469 U.S. at 393–94 (“[T]he services of a lawyer will for virtually every layman be necessary to present an appeal in a form suitable for appellate consideration on the merits. . . . [Counsel] must be available to assist in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court, and must play the role of an active advocate, rather than a mere friend of the court assisting in a detached evaluation of the appellant’s claim.” (emphases added) (internal citations omitted)); Ross, 417 U.S. at 610– 11 (describing appellate counsel’s constitutional role “as a sword to upset the …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dockery v. Lee, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility
An indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel on his first appeal as of right, and it has long been settled that “the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request.” Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967) (per curiam) (quotations omitted); see also, e.g., Koenig v. North Dakota, 755 F.3d 636, 642 (8th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Pirkel v. DeWayne Burton
Then, in Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 259 (1967), the Supreme Court examined Missouri’s procedure, which allowed appellate attorneys to withdraw if they filed a motion for new trial and notice of appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
La Verne Koenig v. State of North Dakota
Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967) (per curiam): When a defendant whose indigency and desire to appeal are manifest does not have the services of his trial counsel on appeal, it simply cannot be inferred from defendant’s failure specifically to request appointment of appellate counsel that he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the appointment of appellate counsel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donovan v. Pesce
The Court stated: “when it was discerned that defendant was unrepresented on appeal, absent record evidence that defendant was informed of his right to counsel and that he waived that right, the [First Department] should not have proceeded to consider and decide the People’s appeal” (id. at 46, citing Swenson v Bosler, 386 US 258, 260 [1967]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hodges
Halbert explained, “ ‘[T]he assistance of appellate counsel in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court which defines the legal principles upon which the claims of error are based and which designates and interprets the relevant portions of the [record] may well be of substantial benefit to the defendant [and] may not be denied . . . solely because of his indigency.’ ” (Halbert, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 620 , quoting Swenson v. Bosler (1967) 386 U.S. 258, 259 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 33 , 87 S.Ct. 996 ].) Nothing in Halbert or Douglas compels the appointment of appellate counsel before…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Halbert v. Michigan
But Douglas had already answered that question, as this Court summarily declared: “[Appointed counsel] may not be denied to a criminal defendant, solely because of his indigency, on the only appeal which the State affords him as a matter of right.” 386 U. S., at 259 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitehead, Patti
Swenson v. Bosler , 386 U.S. 258, 259 (1967)(no request necessary to be entitled to counsel on appeal). 56.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Scott
Rinaldi reiterated the right of an indigent criminal defendant to access to appellate review, holding, without reference to the Sixth Amendment, “This Court has never held that the States are required to establish avenues of appellate review, but it is now fundamental that, once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts. [Citations.]” (Id., at p. 310 [ 86 S.Ct. at p. 1500 ].) Subsequently, on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, the Supreme Court held an indigent criminal appellant was entitled to “[t]he assi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Scott
Rinaldi reiterated the right of an indigent criminal defendant to access to appellate review, holding, without reference to the Sixth Amendment, "This Court has never held that the States are required to establish avenues of appellate review, but it is now fundamental that, once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts. [Citations.]" ( Id., at p. 310 [ 86 S.Ct. at p. 1500 ].) Subsequently, on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, the Supreme Court held an indigent criminal appellant was entitled to "[t]he assistanc…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Ray Wideman v. State
Swenson v. Bosler , 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967); Ex parte Rains , 555 S.W.2d 478,482 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Velasquez
It was concluded that "[a] first appeal of right therefore is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney." Id. at 396 (footnote omitted); see, also, State v. Miller (1988), 44 Ohio App. 3d 42, 43 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evitts v. Lucey
(2×)
Griffin, Burns, Smith [v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 (1961)], and Eskridge . . . ." "Such a procedure, based on indigency alone, does not meet constitutional standards"); Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487, 496 (1963) ("[T]he duty of the State is to provide the indigent as adequate and effective an appellate review as that given appellants with funds the State must provide the indigent defendant with means of presenting his contentions to the appellate court which are as good as those available to a nonindigent defendant with similar contentions"); Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, 745 (196…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carson
Holding that guilty pleaders have a constitutional right to counsel see Davis v. United States (CA 5, 1967), 376 F2d 535; In re Palmer (1963), 371 Mich 656 ; Commonwealth v. Rundle (1964), 415 Pa 515 ( 204 A2d 439, 442 ); cf. Rice v. Olson (1945), 324 US 786, 788, 789 ( 65 S Ct 989 , 89 L Ed 1367 ). 5 Carnley v. Cochran (1962), 369 US 506, 516 ( 82 S Ct 884 , 8 L Ed 2d 70 ); Burgett v. Texas, supra; Swenson v. Bosler (1967), 386 US 258, 260 ( 87 S Ct 996 , 18 L Ed 2d 33 ); also, see People v. Dunn (1968), 380 Mich 693, 698 . 6 See footnote 4. 7 Tehan v. Shott (1966), 382 US 406 , 416 ( 86 S Ct…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Chung
We recognize that, in Swenson v. Bosler, supra, (1967) 386 U.S. 258, 260 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 33, 36 , 87 S.Ct. 996, 998 ], the Supreme Court of the United States said: “When a defendant Avhose indigency and desire to appeal are manifest does not have the services of his trial counsel on appeal, it simply cannot be inferred from defendant’s failure specifically to request appointment of appellate counsel that he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the appointment of appellate counsel. ’ ’ But in the case now before us, the record discloses much more than a mere failure to reque…
examined
Cited "see"
Jones v. Berge
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967) (holding that waiver of the right to counsel on appeal must be "knowingly and intelligently" made). 6 .
examined
Cited "see"
Keith S. Betts v. Jon E. Litscher
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967).
examined
Cited "see"
Walker v. McCaughtry
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967) (waiver of the right to counsel on appeal must be made "knowingly and intelligently”). 4 .
examined
Cited "see"
Wisconsin Ex Rel. Toliver v. McCaughtry
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967) (waiver of the right to counsel on appeal must be made "knowingly and intelligently''). 10 .
examined
Cited "see"
Smith v. State
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967), affirmed on remand, Bosler v. State, 462 S.W.2d 768 (Mo.1971) (opinion by Higgins, C.). .See, for example, Toliver v. Wyrick, 469 F.Supp. 583 (W.D.Mo.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William Lawrence Washington
(2×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 *294 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967).
examined
Cited "see"
Ross v. State
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 1967, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 ; Berriel v. Wainwright, S.D.Fla. 1968, 290 F. Supp. 669 ; Foxworth v. Wainwright, 5th Cir.1971, 449 F.2d 319 .
examined
Cited "see"
Bethel Raymond Fairris v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, No. 71-1743 Summary Calendar. (1) Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967). 18 It is apparent from the records of this cause that Petitioner gave notice of appeal in open court.
examined
Cited "see"
Bethel Raymond Fairris v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967).
examined
Cited "see"
Dan Westley Gray v. Harold R. Swenson
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 .
examined
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Bird
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 .
examined
Cited "see"
Newland v. State
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996, 998 , 18 L.
examined
Cited "see"
United States of America Ex Rel. Joseph A. Di Rienzo v. State of New Jersey
(6×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); cf. United States ex rel.
examined
Cited "see"
Lewis Milton Williams v. United States
(3×)
See Bosler v. Swenson, 8 Cir., 363 F.2d 154 , aff’d, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 ; Williams v. United States, 8 Cir., 402 F.2d 548, 552 .
examined
Cited "see"
Caffey v. Swenson
(3×)
See Bosler v. Swenson, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Gorton
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967) ; Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), reh. den. 388 U.S. 924 , 87 S.Ct. 2094 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967).
examined
Cited "see"
United States ex rel. Edwards v. Follette
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Puckett v. North Carolina, 343 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1965); Pate v. Holman, 341 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), modified on rehearing, 343 F.2d 546 (1965).
examined
Cited "see"
Peter Schwander v. United States
(3×)
See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Crawford v. Beto, 383 F.2d 604 (5 Cir. 1967).
examined
Cited "see"
Garton v. Swenson
(3×)
See Bosler v. Swenson, 8 Cir. 1966, 363 F.2d 154 , affirmed per curiam, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 on March 13, 1967.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Taveras v. Smith
(3×)
See also Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967) (per curiam) (“It is now settled ‘that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request.’ ”) (quoting Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Donna Barger v. United States
See, e.g., Maness v. Swenson, 385 F.2d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 1967) (quoting Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967)).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Donna Barger v. United States
(3×)
See, e.g., Maness v. Swenson, 385 F.2d 943, 945 (8th Cir.1967) (quoting Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967)).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. Ganim
(3×)
Ed. 2d 799 (1963); to provide indigent criminal defendants with counsel in criminal appeals; see, e.g., Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S. Ct. 996 , 18 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sheridan
(3×)
See e.g., Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 , 87 S.Ct. 996, 997-98 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33, 36 (1967) (where the United States Supreme Court held that “it simply cannot be inferred from defendant’s failure specifically to request appointment of appellate counsel that he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the appointment of appellate counsel”).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Scales v. Estelle
(3×)
Compare Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Harris v. Estelle, 487 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1973); Daniels v. Alabama, 487 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1973); Ex parte Breen, 420 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App. 1967) (dissenting opinion).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Meadows v. Beto
(3×)
See also Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Anders v. State
(6×)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at p. 471 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, at p. 1626 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; See also Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 ; People v. Lilliock, 62 Cal.2d 618 , 43 Cal.Rptr. 699 , 401 P.2d 4 ; Lee v. United States, 322 F.2d 770 (5th Cir.).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Jones
(6×)
Since petitioner has presented no satisfactory explanation for his dilatoriness before seeking relief, the People urge that such contentions should not now be considered as a valid basis for habeas corpus relief, citing In re Wells, 67 Cal.2d 873, 875 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 317 , 434 P.2d 613 ]; In re Streeter, 66 Cal.2d 47, 52 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 824 , 423 P.2d 976 ]; In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 302 [ 209 P.2d 793 ]. *378 [1a] The right to the assistance of counsel at trial is a constitutional right (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 93 A.L.R.2d 733 ]; In re Johnson, 62 C…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Baugh v. Swenson
(3×)
Compare Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Garner
(3×)
(Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. 353 ; see also Swenson v. Bosler (1967) 386 U.S. 258 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 33 , 87 S.Ct. 996 ]; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ].) Under Douglas , defendants whose convictions were final years ago, having exhausted all routes of appeal, are today afforded the assistance of counsel on appeal in all cases in which it was previously denied.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles v. State
(6×)
See also Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 , 87 S.Ct. 996 , 18 L.Ed.2d 33 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Swenson, Warden
v.
Bosler
v.
Bosler
759.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 13, 1967.
Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and J. Gordon Siddens and Howard L. McFadden, Assistant Attorneys General, for petitioner.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 283 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Utah (3)
Per Curiam.
Petitioner seeks certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals holding invalid under the doctrine of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, the State of Missouri’s former practice of deciding direct criminal appeals by convicted indigent defendants without the appointment of appellate counsel. We grant the writ of certiorari and, for the reasons below, we affirm.
Under Missouri criminal practice, a convicted defendant’s motion for new trial must set forth in detail his specific' grounds for relief; and in general, a Missouri appellate court may not consider on appeal questions which were not first presented to the trial court in a motion, for new trial. See State v. Mallory, 336 S. W. 2d[*259] 383 (Mo. Sup. Ct.), cert. denied, 364 U. S. 852; State v. Davis, 251 S. W. 2d 610, 615-616 (Mo. Sup. Ct.); Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 27.20. Prior to March 1,1964, Missouri had no rule requiring appointment of appellate counsel for indigent defendants. * If trial counsel filed a motion for new trial and ñotice of appeal and then withdrew from the case, the Supreme Court of Missouri would require preparation of. the transcript for appeal and then would consider the questions raised by the motion for new trial on the basis of pro se briefs by the defendant-appellant, or on no briefs at all. This is what occurred in this case. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this procedure violated respondent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, as defined in Douglas, even though respondent’s trial counsel filed the notice of appeal and a motion for new trial which specifically designated the issues which could be considered on direct appeal. The assistance of appellate counsel in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court which defines the legal principles upon which the claims of error are based and which designates and interprets the relevant portions of the trial transcript may well be of substantial benefit to the defendant. This .advantage may not be denied to a criminal defendant, solely because of his indigency, on the only appeal which the State affords him as a matter of right.
[*260] Petitioner contends that, since the District Court did not hold a hearing to determine whether respondent actually requested the appointment of appellate counsel, the record as it presently exists does not support the Court of Appeals’ express conclusion that respondent did make such a request. Respondent included in the appendix to his petition to the District Court a copy of the full transcript of his.Missouri trial, the accuracy of which petitioner does not contest. We think the documents contained in this transcript demonstrate that respondent did indicate to the Missouri courts his desire for counsel on appeal. But even if such a request had not been made, we do not think its absence would amount, to a waiver of respondent’s rights. It is now settled “that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request.” Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506, 513. When a defendant whose indigency and desire to appeal are manifest does not have the services of his trial counsel on appeal, it simply cannot be inferred from defendant’s failure specifically to request appointment of appellate counsel that he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the appointment of appellate counsel.
Affirmed..
*
On July 9, 1963, after the Douglas decision, Missouri altered its appellate practice by adding Subsection (c) to Rule 29.01' of the. Supreme Court’s Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective March 1, 1964:
“(c) When a defendant is convicted of a felony, is sentenced therefor and desires to appeal, if it appears from a showing of indigency that the defendant is unable to employ counsel the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him upon such appeal; such counsel may, in the discretion of the court, be the same counsel who represented the defendant at the trial or other counsel.”