Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 45 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45

Cite as: 528 U. S. 259 (2000)

Souter, J., dissenting

in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989)). The same point, of course, would answer any objection under the AEDPA that an Anders petitioner was seeking to go beyond "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. III).

* * *

The Wende procedure does not assure even the most minimal assistance of counsel in an adversarial role. The Constitution demands such assurances, and I would hold Robbins entitled to an appeal that provides them.

303

Page:   Index   Previous  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45

Last modified: October 4, 2007