United States of America Ex Rel. Lenox J. Edwards v. Harold W. Follette, as Warden of Green Haven State Prison, Stormville, New York

399 F.2d 298, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5959
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 1968
Docket541, Docket 32280
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 399 F.2d 298 (United States of America Ex Rel. Lenox J. Edwards v. Harold W. Follette, as Warden of Green Haven State Prison, Stormville, New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America Ex Rel. Lenox J. Edwards v. Harold W. Follette, as Warden of Green Haven State Prison, Stormville, New York, 399 F.2d 298, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5959 (2d Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in Judge Tyler’s thorough opinion below.

However, we do not go as far as Judge Tyler seems to have gone, in holding that once the defendant, who lacks appellate counsel, has manifested his indigency and his desire to appeal, “the burden shifts to the state to properly process his appeal.”

As we stated in United States ex rel. Mitchell v. Follette, 358 F.2d 922, 927, “ * * * the court, and hence the state, is not a surety for the proper performance of counsel whether assigned or retained * * *.”

The responsibility of the state through its courts in such a situation is to assign appellate counsel for the indigent appellant and to see that he has a free transcript of the record below. Here the assignment of appellate counsel was for the Appellate Division. Under the former New York Code of Criminal Procedure, the Clerk of the Bronx County Court, where appellant was tried and convicted, was required to prepare and forward the trial record to the Appellate Division. N.Y.Code Crim.Pro. § 485(8).

The responsibility of the state through its prosecuting arm in moving to dismiss an appeal of an indigent defendant, includes informing the appellate court of the appellant’s indigency and the necessity for the appointment of appellate counsel to represent him, as well as, of course, giving adequate notice of the application to the indigent appellant.

None of these responsibilities seem to have been performed in connection with the dismissal of this petitioner’s appeal from his conviction. Under these circumstances petitioner was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal, as Judge Tyler properly held.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peterson v. State of Missouri
355 F. Supp. 1371 (W.D. Missouri, 1973)
People v. Edwards
39 A.D.2d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
United States ex rel. Sammarco v. Lavallee
305 F. Supp. 759 (S.D. New York, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
399 F.2d 298, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-lenox-j-edwards-v-harold-w-follette-as-ca2-1968.