WPCs 0 lE♞޼K ƥ!nKݳ:;p.+|ⴡu97뜬!x, ۧ܇_bEuF-q-'tVg̥QRBbB|=(_W@RW9ŐU<50 %Xؿ!:&=;Z4[R#!܂g-mNBt$?q)]%2B@>U "= g?Rb= *E c9"L)CLsL8x1^ǖL)Ek#g)#fUN/ %} 0Y 0U 01 0 0 0 09 0 0 0. 0 0 0S 0 0 0H 0 0x 0 0 0J 0 0 0`! 0! 0" 0(# 0#N8$*:$ 0Nd$w$4$$$ m$ 0 c$ 1uU% 72% 0w% 0s& 0& 0' 0Q( 0) 0) 0D* 1&, 72,b,U>, 0'- 0- 0. 0>U/ 0/ 00 0m1 0O2 013 04 04 05 026 06 0:7 0Y7 0_B8 0 8 09 0-; B*3= D/]= D+= 0= D/? 0? 06@ 0@ 0:A 0^2B 0<B 1eBU61CU*gCC F -F ?F F BF 0 DG^GJlIU0L L M PMdM]FO  QQrT\W\W 1_ G_ a_a_ w_ _ ~_ #`=1`^ nczcC ffa[q[q r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 0 rCENTRAL OFFICE0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  mailto:jboc@fdap.org(O$OV.626dBackup3|xU(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a))i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# (+,-./01xAGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List32- -\  `&Times New Roman0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS6\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS6\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS6\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S6\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S6\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X75+ ` hp x 5  K)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS6\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS6\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial z Q$cXXUSUS.,      2    _ԀWhiletheSupremeCourtanalyzestherighttorepresentationintheappealitself  underthedueprocessclause(_Evitt_Ԁv._Lucey_(1985)469U.S.387),ithastreatedthedutyto  fileanoticeofappealuponadefendantsrequestaspartoftrialcounselsobligationsunder  theSixthAmendment.Cf.Roev.FloresOrtega,supra,at477.sp_233_88SDU_88citeas((Cite as: 10 Cal.3d 72, *88, 514 P.2d 97, **107, 109 Cal.Rptr. 785, ***795)SR;8308 d(#$  0    Q$cXXUSUS.,      3    _Ԁ Weemploytheterm6cc#c6c#consulttoconveyaspecificmeaningadvisingthedefendant  abouttheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftakinganappeal,andmakingareasonableeffort  todiscoverthedefendant'swishes.FloresOrtega,supra,at478. @ Q$cXXUSUS.,      5    _ԀThatisnottosaythattheprobablemeritsofanappealareentirelyirrelevanttothe  ineffectiveassistanceanalysis.Wheretheallegederrorconsistsoftheattorneysfailureto  advisetheclientontherighttoappeal(asopposedtoanattorneysdisregardofaspecific  requesttofileanappeal),theexistenceof _nonfrivolous_Ԁgroundsforappealismaterialto  the performanceinquiryasafactorbearingonwhether arationaldefendantwouldwant  toappeal.Cf.FloresOrtega,supra,480U.S.at480.* `CG Timessp_233_520SDU_520citeas((Cite as: 21 Cal.3d 513, *520)  Q$cXXUSUS.,      6    _ԀAmongotherproblemswiththatargument,thedefendanthimself hadtestifiedat  trialthathewassingle,and alltheevidenceimplicitlyindicatedthatthepetitionerandthe  victimweretotalstrangerspriortothecriminalepisode.Smith,supra,at198. S Q$cXXUSUS.,      9    _ԀAlso,intheyearsimmediatelyafter_Strickland_,afewCaliforniaappellatedecisions  continuedtoemploytheframeworkestablishedinSmith,_Rhoden_,andLang,without  V discussing_Strickland_.E.g.,Peoplev.Valenzuela(1985)175_Cal.App_.3d381.f121970132874  Q$cXXUSUS.,      7    _ԀInthefourthcase,Banks,thedefendantfiledtwosuccessfulpro.per.petitionsfor  certiorari;eachtime,theU.S.SupremeCourtgrant_cert.and_Ԁremandedthecasetothe  Californiacourtsforreconsiderationinlightofthenrecentopinions.Remarkably,eventhen,  counselfailedtobriefthespecificpointsraisedbytheSupremeCourtsremandorders.In  reBanks,supra,4Cal.3dat341343.  Q$cXXUSUS.,      8    _ԀInBanks,theCourtbypassedtheremedyofrecallingtheremittitur. [_I]n_Ԁviewof  thehistoryofthecase(whichhadalreadytwicebeenremandedfromtheU.S.Supreme  Court)andintheinterestof conservationofscarcejudicialresources,theCourtelectedto  usethehabeaspetitiontodecidetheultimatemeritsofthepreviouslyomittedissuesand  reversedtheconviction.Banks,supra,4Cal.3dat343;seePartVforfurtherdiscussion.  Q$cXXUSUS.,      1    _ԀTheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasbeenwillingtograntrelieffromhabeascounsels   abandonmentoftheclientinanothercontextwherestatelawprovidedforappointmentof  counsel.InreSanders(1999)21Cal.4th697.InSanders,theSupremeCourtappointed  counseltorepresentacapitaldefendantbothforhisdirectappealandforinvestigationand  filingofahabeaspetition.However,despiteSupremeCourtrulesrequiringacapitalhabeas  petitiontobefiledwithinaspecifiedperiodofcompletionofbriefingintheappeal,appellate   counselfailedtoconductahabeasinvestigation.TwoyearsaftertheCourts_affirmance_Ԁof   theconvictionandsentenceinthedirectappeal,newcounsel(whohadbeenappointedin   Sandersfederalhabeasproceeding)filedastatehabeaspetitiononhisbehalf.Despitethe    substantialdelayinfilingthepetition,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtchosenotto    procedurallydefaultthepetitionunderitstimelinessrules,butconsidered(anddenied)the   petitiononthemerits: Weconcludethatwhen,ashere,anattorneyrepresentingacapital   defendantessentiallyabandonshisclientandfails,inthefaceoftriggeringfacts,toconduct   aninvestigationinordertodeterminewhetherthereexistpotentiallymeritoriousclaims,such   abandonmentconstitutesgoodcauseforsubstantialdelayinthepresentationofpotentially  meritoriousclaimsbysubsequentcounsel.[Fn.]Sanders,supra,at701.SR;11485SearchTermSR;11486sp_780_752SDU_752citeas((Cite as: 463 U.S. 745, *752, 103 S.Ct. 3308, **3313)FN10 3 Q$cXXUSUS.,      10    _ԀAstheNinthCircuithasobserved, 6ccAhallmarkofeffectiveappellatecounselis  theabilitytoweedoutclaimsthathavenolikelihoodofsuccess,insteadofthrowingina  kitchensinkfullofargumentswiththehopethatsomeargumentwillpersuadethecourt.  [Citation.]Pollardv.White(9thCir.1997)#c6c#6ccԀ119F.3d1430,1435;accord,e.g.,Hayesv.  _Woodford_(9thCir.2002)301F.3d1054,1086#c6cW#.Zp6   Q$cXXUSUS.,      11    _ԀIfcounselfileda_Wende_orequivalentAndersbriefraisingnoissues,thefailureto  spotandincludeanarguableissuedoesconstitutedeficientperformance(though,as  discussedbelow(PartIVD),theprejudiceprongstillrequirestheadditionalshowingofa   reasonableprobabilitythattheomittedclaimwouldhavesucceeded).Smithv.Robbins  (2000)528U.S.259,288. 9 Q$cXXUSUS.,      12    _ԀHowever,muchasinthetrialcontext,theSupremeCourthas distinguisheddenial  ofcounselaltogetheronappeal,whichwarrantsapresumptionofprejudice,frommere  ineffectiveassistanceofcounselonappeal,whichdoesnot.[Citation.]Smith,supra,528  U.S.at286.PrejudiceispresumedifanattorneysAndersbrieforthereviewingcourts  procedureforconsideringsuchbriefsissodeficientthatitamountstoaconstructivedenial  ofcounsel._Penson_Ԁv.Ohio(1988)488U.S.75,8889.In_Penson_,appellatecounselfiled   ashort_conclusory_Ԁmotiondeclaringthattherewerenomeritoriousissuesandseekingleave   towithdraw;themotiondidnotsummarizetheproceedingsorfactsofthecaseanddid   nothingtoreferthereviewingcourttoanythingintherecordthatmightarguablysupportan   appeal.Onitsownreviewoftherecord,theappellatecourtspottedseveralarguableissues,   butitthencompoundedthedeprivationofcounselbyproceedingtodecidethoseissuesitself   withoutorderingbriefingorappointingnewcounsel. 6ccThepresentcaseisunlikeacasein   whichcounselfailstopressaparticularargumentonappeal[citation]#c6c#6cc,orfailstoarguean   issueaseffectivelyasheorshemight.Rather,atthetimetheCourtofAppealsfirst   consideredthemeritsofpetitioner'sappeal,appellatecounselhadalreadybeengrantedleave  towithdraw;petitionerwasthusentirelywithouttheassistanceofcounselonappeal.....#c6c#6ccIt  isthereforeinappropriate#c6c#6cctoapplyeithertheprejudicerequirementof#c6c#6cc_Strickland_#c6cp #6ccԀorthe  harmlesserroranalysisof#c6c #6ccChapman.[Fn.]#c6c[ #6cc_Penson_,supra,at8889.#c6c # W Q$cXXUSUS.,      4    _ԀOfcourse,section1237.5imposestheadditionalconditionthatthetrialcourtmust  grantthecertificateapplication,inorderforanappealonsuchgroundstoproceed.sp_780_286SDU_286(Y(2Q$ !cXXUSUS.,        0   !cXXUSUS.,  _   58cdd8R Qc@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @VV"#c QR#AcJanuary27,2007 H @*#cA#J ce@  AppellateIneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel 8  #c J#Ac@66 J.BradleyOConnell | #cA#Ic  '4# INEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFAPPELLATECOUNSEL:   _  SpottingIt,LitigatingIt&AvoidingItYourself#cIE#  ` Ac  PreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell  StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject   4! "O  5  jboc@fdap.org6"O)  7 WԀ  . January2007#cAi#   R   I.0  THERIGHTTOEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFAPPELLATECOUNSEL &v (#(# 0  Acriminaldefendanthasafederalconstitutionalrighttoeffectiveassistanceof $t  counselonhisfirstappealasofright.Evittv.Lucey(1985)469U.S.387.Unlike $t  effectiveassistanceoftrialcounsel,whicharisesfromtheSixthAmendmentsexpress $t  rightto counsel,theentitlementtoeffectiveassistanceofappellatecounselderives $t  fromthedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment(or,forfederalcriminal $t defendants,fromtheparallelclauseoftheFifthAmendment).Dueprocessandequal $t protectionprinciplesalsoentitleanindigentdefendanttoappointmentofcounselon $t directappeal(Douglasv.California(1963)372U.S.353)andtofreeprovisionof $t whatevertranscriptsarenecessarytoappellatereview(Griffinv.Illinois(1956)351 $t U.S.12).$t(#(# 0  Limitationtofirstappealofright:Thefederalconstitutionalrightofanindigent $t defendanttoappointmentofcounselonappealandofanydefendanttoeffective $t assistanceofcounselonappeal(whetherappointedorretained)islimitedtothefirst $t directappealasofrightinthestatessystem. Ourcasesestablishthattherightto $t appointedcounselextendstothefirstappealasofright,andnofurther.Pennsylvania $t v.Finley(1987)481U.S.551,555.Thus,inCalifornia,thatrightattachesto $ t proceedingsondirectappealintheCourtofAppealinnoncapitalcasesorinthe $!t SupremeCourtincapitalcases.Butthereisnofederalconstitutionalrighttocounsel $"t topursueapetitionfordiscretionaryreviewtothestateshighestcourt.Rossv. $#t Moffitt(1974)417U.S.600.Consequently,itisnotpossibletobaseanineffective $$t assistanceclaimoncounselsrefusalorfailuretofileapetitionforreviewinthe $%t  CaliforniaSupremeCourtorfordeficientperformanceinthepresentationofsucha $&t!  petition(e.g.,theattorneysomissionofaviableissueforreview).Thatlimitation, $'t"! ofcourse,setsupapotentialCatch22,becausepresentationofadefendantsfederal $(t#" constitutionalclaimstothestateshighestcourtisaprerequisitefor exhaustionof $)t$# thoseclaimsforpurposesofsubsequentfederalhabeasreview.OSullivanv.Boerckel $*t%$ (1999)526U.S.838. $+t&%(#(#  3(+,-./012(Ay3)"(3"    (3I2A3  0    Possiblealternativestateremediesfordefaultedpetitionsforreview.󀀀Although  thereisnofederalconstitutionalrighttoeffectiveassistanceinfilingapetition  forreview,itisstilloftenpossibletoobtainaformofreliefintheCalifornia  courtswhereappellatecounseleffectivelyabandonstheclientandfrustratesthe  clientsabilitytoseekreviewonhisown!suchaswherecounselpromisesto  petitionforreviewbutfailstodoso,orwherecounselneglectstoinformthe   clientoftheappellatecourtsdecision.Ineachofthesescenarios,the   attorneyserrordoesnotmerelydeprivetheclientofassistanceofcounselin   preparingapetitionforreview,butalsoeffectivelypreventstheclientfrom   attemptingtofileapro.per.petitionforreview.Althoughthereisnopublished   caselawpreciselyonpoint,inourexperience,appellatecourtsarewillingto   grantreliefunderthesecircumstancesbyrecallingtheremittiturandrefiling   theappellateopinion.Therefilingoftheopinionrestartstheclock,andthe   defendant(eitheronhisownorwiththeassistanceofnewcounsel)isableto   petitionforreviewandtherebypreserveandexhausthisclaims.(3I݌ (# (# Ќ  0  Limitationtodirectreview;norighttocounseltopursuecollateralremedies.The  federalconstitutionalrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounselislimitedtothedirect  appeal.Thereisnorighttoappointmentofcounselandnorighttoeffectiveassistance  ofcounselforpurposesofstatecollateralproceedings!i.e.,statehabeascorpus.  Pennsylvaniav.Finley(1987)481U.S.551.Consequently,evenifastatedoes  provideappointedcounselforapostconvictionproceeding,thatattorneyserrors  cannotprovideabasisforaconstitutionalclaimofineffectiveassistance.Coleman  v.Thompson(1991)501U.S.722.dramaticallyillustratesthatruleandits  consequencesfordefendants.InColeman,Virginialawprovidedacapitaldefendant  withappointedcounsel,whorepresentedhiminastatepostconvictionhearing.But,  followingthestatetrialcourtsdenialofthepetition,theappointedattorneymisseda  crucialfilingdeadlineintheVirginiaSupremeCourt,whichdismissedtheproceeding  (apparentlyduetothelatefiling)withoutaddressingthemerits.That procedural   defaultinthestatecourtsalsobarredfederalhabeasreviewoftheclaimsraisedinthe ! statepostconvictionproceeding.Althoughattorneyerroramountingtoa " constitutionalviolation(i.e.,ineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrialorondirect # appeal)wouldhaveprovided causeforovercomingtheproceduralbar,theU.S. $  SupremeCourtrefusedtoextendthatprincipletotheerrorsofhabeascounsel. %!! Becausetherewasnofederalconstitutionalrighttoassistanceofcounselinthepost &"" convictionproceedinginthefirstplace,thehabeasattorneysdeficientperformance '## couldnotprovidethebasisforanineffectiveassistanceclaim. ($$(#(# _"(3"  0  (3!2A3  0 (#(#  PossiblegroundsforreliefinCalifornia.NotwithstandingFinleyand  Coleman,Californialawmayprovidesomegroundsforrelieffromgrosserrors  bypostconvictioncounselundersomeverylimitedcircumstances.Although  Californiadoesnotrecognizeanybroadrighttoappointmentofhabeascounsel  innoncapitalcases,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthaslongheldthat due  processconcernsrequireappointmentofcounselinthoserareinstanceswhere   acourtfindsaprimafaciecaseandactuallyissuesanOrdertoShowCause   (OSC)onahabeaspetition.InreClark(1993)5Cal.4th750,780;Peoplev.   Shipman(1965)62Cal.2d226,232233.Inlightofthoseholdings,itis   conceivablethataCaliforniacourtwouldgrantrelieffromdeficientattorney   representationinpostOSChabeasproceedings!atleasttotheextentof   relievingtheclientfromanyforfeitureofhisclaimsattributabletoattorney   neglect.k _#  1      ׀(3!"݌  (# (# Ќ    II.0  INEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEINPERFECTINGTHEAPPEAL (#(# 0  Themostegregiousattorneyerrorsintheappellateprocessarethosewhichforfeitthe  defendantsappealaltogether(asopposedtothoseaffectingonlyparticularclaims).  Thiscategoryincludesboth frontenderrorsintheinitialnoticingofanappealand  errorslaterintheappellateprocess,whichresultindefaultdismissalofanappeal   withoutdeterminationofthemerits.Notsurprisingly,thesearealsotheareasinwhich   itiseasiestforadefendanttoobtainreliefintheformofreinstatementofhisrightto   proceedwiththeappeal. (#(# 0  A.0 (#(#NoticingtheAppeal.  (# (# 0  Thedeadlineforfilinganoticeofappeal(currently,60daysfromthejudgment,Cal.   RulesofCourt,rule8.308(a))isoftendescribedas jurisdictional.Nonetheless,the   CaliforniaSupremeCourthaslongrecognizedthatadefendantisentitledtorelief   fromthatrequirementandhasordered constructivefilingofalatenoticeofappeal,  whendefensetrialcounselignoredtheclientsexpressinstructionstofileanappeal:   6ccOfcourse,thetrialattorneyisundernoobligationtorepresentthedefendantonthe  appeal,butwherethedefendantclearlyindicates,ashedidhere,thathedesiresto  appeal,thetrialattorneyisunderadutynottoignorethatrequest.% Z #c6c-#%Z.% [ %[&/6ccԀ% \ #c6cD/#6ccThetrialattorney  isunderadutyeithertofilethe%\e/% ] #c6c/#%]06ccnoticeofappeal,ortoinstructthedefendantastothe  properprocedure,ortoseethatthedefendanthascounseltodothesethingsforhim.#c6cP0#6cc]  #c6c51#Peoplev.6ccԀDiehl(1964)62Cal.2d114,117118;#c6c1#6ccInreBenoit(1973)10Cal.3d72,87  88#c6c 2#,emphasisinBenoit.(#(# 0  SubsequentU.S.SupremeCourtdecisionshaveconfirmedthatthefederalconstitution  alsodictatesreliefunderthesecircumstances. [A]lawyerwhodisregardsspecific  instructionsfromthedefendanttofileanoticeofappealactsinamannerthatis  professionallyunreasonable[citations]andtherebydeprivesthedefendantofhis   SixthAmendmentrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Y _#  2      ׀Roev.FloresOrtega ! (2000)528U.S.470,477."(#(# 0  Roev.FloresOrtegaalsomakesclearthat,insomecircumstances,adefendantwill $  beentitledtoreliefeventhough,duetohisignoranceofhisappellaterights,henever % ! specificallyaskedhisattorneytoappeal.TheprincipalquestionisFloresOrtegawas,   Underwhatcircumstancesdoescounselhaveanobligationtoconsultwiththe  defendantaboutanappeal?6ccFloresOrtega,supra,at478,emphasisadded.` _#  3      ׀#c6c`7#Though  theFloresOrtegamajorityagreedthat thebetterpracticeisforcounselroutinelyto  consultwiththedefendantregardingthepossibilityofanappeal,itdeclinedtoimpose  a brightlinerule,mandatingsuchconsultationsineverycase.Id.at479,480. (#(# 0  8 (#(#6ccWeinsteadholdthatcounselhasaconstitutionallyimposeddutyto   consultwiththedefendantaboutanappealwhenthereisreasontothink   either(1)thatarationaldefendantwouldwanttoappeal(forexample,   becausetherearenonfrivolousgroundsforappeal),or(2)thatthis   particulardefendantreasonablydemonstratedtocounselthathewas   interestedinappealing.Inmakingthisdetermination,courtsmusttake   intoaccountalltheinformationcounselkneworshouldhaveknown.   [Citation.]Although#c6c9#6ccnotdeterminative,ahighlyrelevantfactorinthis  inquirywillbewhethertheconvictionfollowsatrialoraguiltyplea,  bothbecauseaguiltypleareducesthescopeofpotentiallyappealable  issuesandbecausesuchapleamayindicatethatthedefendantseeksan  endtojudicialproceedings.Evenincaseswhenthedefendantpleads  guilty,thecourtmustconsidersuchfactorsaswhetherthedefendant  receivedthesentencebargainedforaspartofthepleaandwhetherthe  pleaexpresslyreservedorwaivedsomeorallappealrights.Onlyby  consideringallrelevantfactorsinagivencasecanacourtproperly  determinewhetherarationaldefendantwouldhavedesiredanappealor  thattheparticulardefendantsufficientlydemonstratedtocounselan  interestinanappeal.Roev.FloresOrtega,528U.S.at480,emphasis  added.  #c6c<#    0  Asthisformulationreflects,thedutytoconsultmayariseeitherunderanobjectivetest   (basedonthelikelyinterestofahypothetical rationaldefendant)orundera ! subjectiveone(focusedonwhether thisparticulardefendantwouldlikelywantto " appeal,ifheknewofthatright).Themajorityadded, Weexpectthatcourts # evaluatingthereasonablenessofcounsel'sperformanceusingtheinquirywehave $  describedwillfind,inthevastmajorityofcases,thatcounselhadadutytoconsult %!! withthedefendantaboutanappeal.Id.at481.&""(#(# Ї0  B.0 (#(#ApplicabilitytoCertificateofProbableCauseApplication. (# (# 0  Inexplainingtherationaleforcounselsdutytohonoradefendantsrequesttofilean  appeal,theSupremeCourtcommented,6cc Thisissobecauseadefendantwhoinstructs  counseltoinitiateanappealreasonablyreliesuponcounseltofilethenecessary  notice.#c6cWE#Ԁ6ccRoev.FloresOrtega(2000)528U.S.470,477.#c6c[F#Anecessarycorollaryofthe   dutytofile thenecessarynoticeiscompliancewithanygoverningdeadlinesorother   proceduralortechnicalrequirements.Indeed,initsleadingcaserecognizingthe   constitutionalentitlementtoeffectiveassistanceofappellatecounsel,theSupreme   Courtorderedreinstatementofthedefendantsrighttoappealwherehisappellate   counsels 6ccdeficientfailuretocomplywithmechanisticlocalcourtruleshadresulted   inadefaultdismissaloftheappeal.#c6cH#Evittv.Lucey(1985)469U.S.387;seeFlores   Ortega,supra,at485(summarizingholdingofEvitt);seePartID,forfurther   discussionofEvitt.6cc (#(# 0  Takentogether,theFloresOrtegadutytofile thenecessarynoticeifrequestedand  theEvittobligationtocomplywithrelevantstateproceduralrequirementshave  obviousimplicationsforCaliforniastechnicalrulesgoverningappealsfollowing  guiltyornocontestpleas.Underthoserules,asimplenoticestatingthatthedefendant  isappealingfromthejudgment(theordinaryformofaposttrialnoticeofappeal)will  notsuffice.Inordertorenderanappeal operative,apostpleanoticemusteither(1)  statethatitseeksreviewofdenialofaPen.Code#c6cgJ#1538.5suppressionmotion(Cal.  RulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)(4)),and/or(2)includeanapplicationforacertificateof  probablecausestatingconstitutionalorjurisdictionalgroundsgoingtothevalidityof  theproceedings(Pen.Code1237.5).z _#  4      (#(# 0  Accordingly,wherecounselhasreasontoknowthatthedefendantwishestoraise   certificategroundsinapostpleaappeal(includingsuchcommoncomplaintsas  ineffectiveassistanceofcounselinconnectionwiththepleaorotherclaimsgoingto   thevalidityoftheplea),counselhasadutytoprepareacertificateofprobablecause ! application,inconjunctionwiththenoticeitself,or,ataminimum,toadvisethe " defendantonthatprocedure.Indeed,evenbeforesuchU.S.SupremeCourtdecisions # asEvittandFloresOrtega,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtrecognized: Whena $  defendantmakesatimelyrequestofhistrialattorneytofileanappealfromajudgment %!! uponapleaofguilty,theattorneymustfilethe1237.5statement,instructdefendant &"" howtofileit,orsecureothercounselforhim.[Fn.]Peoplev.Ribero(1971)4Cal.3d '## 55,65.(#(# 0  8 (#(#TheLegislaturehasconditionedtherighttoappealfromapleaofguilty  uponthefilingoftherequiredstatement.Adviceorassistanceof  counselinfilingthenoticeofappealismeaninglessifcounseldoesnot  alsoadviseorassistinpreparationandfilingoftherequiredstatement.   Itfollowsthatcounsel'sobligationtoassistinfilingthenoticeofappeal   necessarilyencompassesassistancewiththestatementrequiredby   section1237.5.Ribero,supra,at66.0%  8}% %  }x}x 0  C.0 (#(#NoDutytoShowProbableMeritsofAppeal,WhereCounselDefaultsAppeal.  (# (# 0  TheSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatineffectiveassistanceinfailingtofileanotice   ofappealorotherattorneyneglectwhichresultsindismissalofanappealorotherwise   forfeitsappellatereviewposesamoregrievousproblemthanthemoretraditional  claimeddeficienciesinvolvingfailuretoraiseparticulardiscreteissues.(#(#  V(0y3(+,-./012/ /?+ ` hp x X?6cc    0  8 (#(#Today'scaseisunusualinthatcounsel'sallegeddeficientperformance  arguablylednottoajudicialproceedingofdisputedreliability,but  rathertotheforfeitureofaproceedingitself.....Assumingthose  allegationsaretrue,counsel'sdeficientperformancehasdeprived  respondentofmorethana#c6cY#6ccfair#c6c[#6ccԀjudicialproceeding;thatdeficiency  deprivedrespondentoftheappellateproceedingaltogether.Roev.  FloresOrtega(2000)528U.S.470,483,emphasisinoriginal.      #c6c\#Y  0  Consequently,incontrasttoclaimsconcerningfailuretoraiseparticularissues(see  PartIVD,infra),adefendantneednotshowanylikelihoodthathewouldhave  prevailedonappealinordertoobtainrelieffromhisattorneysdeficientfailuretofile  arequestednoticeofappealortoconsultwiththeclientaboutapossibleappeal.a _#  5      ׀If   thedefendantexpresslyaskedcounseltofileanappeal,nothingfurtherisrequiredto ! demonstrateprejudice.6cc #c6c_#6cc[W]hencounselfailstofilearequestedappeal,adefendant " isentitledto[anew]appealwithoutshowingthathisappealwouldlikelyhavehad # merit#c6cA`#6cc#c6cAa#Ԁ6ccPeguerov.UnitedStates#c6ca#(1999)526U.S.23,28;6ccԀFloresOrtega,supra,528  U.S.at477#c6cb#.Ifcounselunreasonablyfailedtoconsultthedefendantaboutapossible  appeal,theprejudiceinquiryturnssimplyuponwhetherthedefendantwouldhave  takenanappealifproperlyadvised. [T]6ccoshowprejudiceinthesecircumstances,a  defendantmustdemonstratethatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel's  deficientfailuretoconsultwithhimaboutanappeal,hewouldhavetimelyappealed.   FloresOrtega,supra,at484. (#(# 0  D.0 (#(#AbandonedandDefaultedAppeals.  (# (# 0  Aclosecousinofatrialattorneysbreachofapromisetofileanoticeofappealisan   appellateattorneysfailuretobriefanappealafterundertakingtorepresenttheclient.   Intwocases,30yearsapart,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtaddressedalmostidentical   situationsinwhichretainedattorneyseffectivelyabandonedappealsbyallowingthem   togointodefault.InreMartin(1962)58Cal.2d133;InreSerrano(1995)10#c6c|c#Cal.4th6cc  447.InbothMartinandSerrano,appellatecounselacceptedaretainer,thenneglected  tofileabrief,resultingintheappellatecourtseventualdismissaloftheappeal.Each  attorneyhadfailedtorespondtotheclients(ortheclientsfamilys)inquiriesonthe  statusoftheappeal.Ineachcase,theSupremeCourtrecalledtheremittiturand  orderedreinstatementofthedefaultedappeal.(#(# 0  Finally,evenwherecounsel(retainedorappointed)doesattempttobriefanappealon  themerits,thedefendantisentitledtoreliefiftheattorneythendefaultstheappealby  neglectingtocomplywiththejurisdictionsproceduralrequirements.In#c6cg#Evittv.Lucey  (1985)469U.S.387,counselfiledatimelynoticeofappeal.Buthesubsequently  neglectedtocomplywithaKentuckyrulerequiringfilingofaseparatedocument,a   statementofappeal,inconjunctionwiththemeritsbrief.Asaresultofthat  proceduraldeficiency,theKentuckyappellatecourtrefusedtoconsiderthemeritsof  theappealanddismissedit.TheSupremeCourtfoundthattheattorneysdereliction   deprivedLuceyofeffectiveassistanceofcounselonappealandthatstrictenforcement ! ofthe statementofappealrequirementunderthosecircumstancesviolateddue " processbydeprivingLuceyofconsiderationofhisappealonthemerits.#(#(# 0  E.0 (#(#FailuretoAbandontheAppealasIneffectiveAssistance?%!! (# (# 0  Althoughitisclearthatattorneyerrorswhichresultinanappealsdismissalmay '## constituteineffectiveassistance,onereportedCaliforniacaseaddressed,butdidnot ($$ definitivelyresolve,theconversequestion!whether pursuingratherthanabandoning )%% anappealcouldeversupportsuchanineffectiveassistanceclaim.Peoplev.Harris *&& (1993)19Cal.App.4th709,714.Harrisinvolvedaclassic unauthorized +'' sentence/ adverseconsequencesproblem.Appellatecounselsbriefraisedacredits  issueconcerningthe27tolifemurdersentence,buttherespondentsbriefidentified  amoreconsequentialerror!thetrialcourtsfailuretostatereasonsforstrikinga  specialcircumstance.Theappellatecourtremandedthematter,andthetrialcourt  ultimatelyreinstatedthespecialcircumstanceandimposedanLWOPsentence.Inhis  subsequentappealandhabeaspetition,Harrisunsuccessfullyarguedthathisprior   appellatecounselhadrenderedineffectiveassistancebypursuingtheappeal.The   appellatecourtdeniedtheclaimbecauseappellatecounselhadwarnedHarris(atthe   timeofherreplybrief)oftherisksofcontinuingtheappeal,butHarrishadnot   respondedtohersuggestionthatheconsiderabandoningtheappeal. Onthisrecord,   itwaspetitioner,notcounsel,whodecidedtopursueratherthanabandontheappeal.   Harris,supra,at715.Basedonthatconclusion,theappellatecourthad nooccasion   todecidethemorefundamentalquestionofwhetherafailuretoabandonanappeal   posing adverseconsequenceriskscouldeversupportanineffectiveassistanceclaim. (#(#  III.0  DUTYTOENSUREPRESENTATIONOFAPPEALONADEQUATE  RECORD. (#(# 0  6ccThe[U.S.]SupremeCourthasidentifiedatleasttwo#c6c x#6cc #c6cx#basictools6ccԀ[citation]#c6cx#6ccthatare  constitutionallynecessaryfora#c6c+y#6cc #c6cy#completeandadequate6cc#c6c z#6ccappealbyanindigent:(1)  acompetentattorneyonappeal,actingasanadvocateonbehalfoftheindigent  [citations];#c6cQz#6ccand(2)anappellaterecordthatwillpermitameaningful,effective  presentationoftheindigent'sclaims[citaitons].Peoplev.Barton(1978)21Cal.3d  513,518,emphasisadded.(#(# 0  BoththeU.S.andCaliforniaSupremeCourtshavefounddeprivationsofthoserights  whereappellatecounselneglectedtotakethenecessarystepstopresenttheappealon  acompleterecord.In#c6c3{#bP[cEnstmingerv.Iowa(1967)386U.S.748,752#cbP[|}#Ԁ(acaseheard  anddecidedconcurrentlywithAndersv.California(1967)386U.S.738),counsel   submittedthecasetotheappellatecourtfor plenaryreview(astateprocedure ! allowingsubmissionofanappealbasedonthebriefsandargumentsbelow). "  However,counsel,apparentlybelievingtheappealwaswithoutmerit,failedtofile # theentirerecordofpetitionerstrialalthoughithadbeenpreparedbytheStateand $  insteadsubmittedtheappealbasedsolelyonaClerksTranscript.Enstminger,supra, % ! at750.Thattranscriptconsistedoftheaccusatorypleading,thejuryinstructions,and &!"  variousordersandjudgmententriesofthecourt,but[did]notcontainthetranscript '"# ofevidencenorthebriefsandargumentofcounsel.Id.at749.TheSupremeCourt (#$ heldthattheIowareviewingcourtsallowanceofthatprocedure precluded[the )$% defendant]fromobtainingacompleteandeffectiveappellatereviewofhis *%& conviction.Id.at752.+&'(#(# Ї0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtconfrontedamorediscretedeprivationofacomplete  recordin6ccPeoplev.Barton(1978)21Cal.3d513#c6c#.Appellatecounselbriefedthedenial  ofaPen.Code1538.5suppressionmotion.Buthebriefedandsubmittedtheappeal  basedonarecordwhichincludedonlytheseconddayofthetwodaysuppression  hearing.Intheabsenceofthetranscriptofthefirstdayofthehearing,counselbased  hisappellateargumentsonthetestimonyonthesecondday,ontheprosecutors    statementofexpectedtestimonyinhismemoranduminoppositiontothesuppression   motion,andonthetestimonyatthesubsequenttrial.Theappellatecourtaffirmed,   statingthatitwas thedutyofappellanttoproduceanadequaterecord.Id.at517.   ЀTheCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedthedefendantspro.per.petitionforhearing.   ItagreedthatappellatecounselhaddeprivedBartonofeffectiveassistanceofcounsel   by fail[ing]topresentanadequateappellaterecordfromwhich[theappellate]court   couldconsiderthemeritsofthesearchandseizureissue.Id.at516.TheCourt   elaboratedonappellatecounselsdutytomoveforaugmentationortotakeanyother   necessarystepstoremedyomissionofrelevanttranscriptsorothermaterialsfromthe  appellaterecord:(#(# 0  8 (#(#6ccObviously,ifcounselhasadutytocitetotheappellaterecordinsupport  ofhiscontentions,thencounselhasadutytoinsurethatthereisan  adequaterecordbeforetheappellatecourtfromwhichthose% c #c6c#%c% d %dY6ccԀ% e #c6cw#%e6cccontentions  mayberesolvedontheirmerits.Wheretheappropriaterecordismissing  orincomplete,counselmustseethatthedefectisremedied,by  requestingaugmentationorcorrectionoftheappellaterecord[citation#c6c؋#6cc]  orbyotherappropriatemeans[citation#c6c2#6cc]#c6c#6cc.Otherwise,counselhasnot  providedthatadvocacywhichpermits#c6c#6cc #c6c#6ccfullconsiderationand  resolution#c6cҎ#6cc#c6cI#6ccoftheappeal,asrequiredbytheConstitution.[Citations.]  Peoplev.Barton,supra,21Cal.3dat519520.    IV.0  STANDARDSGOVERNINGINEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL   CLAIMS. !(#(# 0  Mostclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounselconcerntheattorneys # choiceofissuestobrief,ratherthanomissionswhichdefaultedtheappealaltogether. $  Thus,thetypicalclaimfocusesonadditionalclaimswhichcounselassertedlyshould % ! haveraised!eitherinsteadoforinadditiontothosewhichheactuallybriefed.&!"(#(# 0  A.0 (#(#PreStricklandCaliforniacases.(#$ (# (# 0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsmostextensivetreatmentsofineffectiveassistanceof *%& appellatecounselcameinaseriesofcasesinthe1970's.#c6c#6ccInreSmith(1970)3#c6c#Cal.3d6cc +&' 192;InreBanks(1971)4#c6cE#Cal.4th6ccԀ337;#c6cÔ#Peoplev.6ccԀRhoden(1972)6#c6c#Cal.3d6ccԀ519;#c6cs#People  v.6ccԀLang(1974)11#c6cە#Cal.3d6ccԀ134.Inmostofthosecases,appellatecounselfileda  woefullyinadequatebrief(inbothsubstanceandform)raisingonlyweakoreven  frivolousissuesandneglectedtopresentother arguableor crucialclaims.(#(# 0  Forexample,inSmith!acasetheSupremeCourtdescribedas bristlingwitharguable   claimsoferror!appellatecounsel filedanopeningbriefconsistingofa20page   recitationofthefactsandaonepageargument.Thepurportedargumentconsistedof   theludicrouspropositionthatpetitionerwasentitledtoreversalonallcountsbecause   thePeoplehadfailedtoexpresslyprovethatpetitionerwasnotmarriedtotherape   complainant.Smith,supra,3#c6c6#Cal.3d6ccԀat198.f _#  6      ׀Incontrasttothatargument!which   was soperceptiblyweakthatitprobablywouldhavebeenbetteroverlooked,id.at   201!appellatecounselfailedtopresentseveral arguableandpotentiallysuccessful   claimssuggestedbytherecord.Theseincludedthesuggestivenessofboththelineup   andincourtidentificationproceduresandthesufficiencyoftheevidencetosupport  anattemptedkidnappingconviction.(#(# 0  Rhodeninvolvedasimilarcombinationofcounselsfilingofadeficientbrief, devoid  ofanycitationofauthority,beitcase,statute,ortreatise,raisingasinglemarginal  argument,andtheattorneysfailuretoraiseseveralmoresubstantialarguments.#c6c#6ccԀ  Theseincludedthedeliveryofinstructionsdefiningthechargedoffense#c6cK#6ccԀinlanguage   takennotfromthecurrentstatute,butfromsection209asitreadin1933,whenthe  statuteallowedanaggravatedkidnapping intheabsenceofanyasportation  whatever,aswellasrelatedinstructionalandsufficiencyofevidenceissues  concerningasportationandotherelements.Rhoden,supra,6#c6c#Cal.3dat525,emphasis  inoriginal.(#(# 0  InLang,however,appellatecounselhadraisedasuccessfulissue,butonewhich  concernedonlythedisposition(proceduralirregularitiesintheMDSOcommitment   proceeding).Butcounselhadneglectedtopresentmultiplepotentiallymeritorious ! challengestotheconvictionitself,includingsufficiencyofevidenceandineffective " assistanceoftrialcounsel,amongothers.Also,counselhadactuallyarguedagainst #  hisclientbystatinginthebrief Iamnotinagreementwiththeclientsclaimsof $  innocence.Lang,supra,11Cal.3dat138.i _#  7      (#(#  0  Ineachofthesecases,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtfoundineffectiveassistance,  basedonappellatecounselsfailure toraisecrucialassignmentsoferror,which  arguablymighthaveresultedinareversal.Smith,supra,3Cal.3dat202;Rhoden,  supra,6Cal.3dat529;Lang,supra,11Cal.3dat142.TheSupremeCourtheldthat   counselsfailuretopresentpotentiallymeritoriousgroundswassufficient,byitself,   toentitlethedefendanttorelief.Significantly,inthreeofthosecases,theCourt   orderedtheappealsreinstated,butdeclinedtoresolvewhethertheomittedclaims   wouldnecessarilyrequirereversal.j _#  8       (#(# 0  8 (#(#6ccWehavecataloguedtheargumentswhichpetitioner'scounselfailedto   offeronbehalfofhisclient,notbecauseweconcludethatpetitionerwas   likelytoobtainareversalonappeal,butonlytodemonstratethathis   appellatecounseldidnotrenderthethoughtfulassistancetowhichhe  wasentitled.#c6cW#% h %h6ccPetitionerneednotestablishthathewasentitledto  reversalinordertoshowprejudiceinthedenialofcounsel.InreSmith,  supra,3Cal.3dat202,emphasisadded;accordRhoden,supra,6#c6c9#Cal.3d6cc  at529;Lang,supra,11#c6c#Cal.3d6ccԀat139.      #c6c#0  ThoughSmithandits1970'sprogenyremaintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsleading  opinionsonthegeneralsubjectofineffectiveassistance,theyweredecided6ccadecade  beforetheU.S.SupremeCourtslandmarkStricklanddecision(Strickland#c6cF#Ԁv.  Washington(1984)466U.S.6686cc)definingthestandardsforineffectiveassistanceof  trialcounsel.#c6c2#6ccgX  _#  9      ׀#c6cӮ#ԀAsdiscussedinPartIVB,subsequentopinions,ofboththeU.S.and  CaliforniaSupremeCourts,havemadeclearthatthetwoprongStricklandtest  (deficientperformanceandareasonableprobabilityofadifferentoutcome)appliesto  appellateineffectiveassistanceclaims,aswell.(#(# 0  Smith,Rhoden,andLang,havenotbeenexpresslyoverruledordisapproved,andthe  actualdispositionsinthosecaseswouldlikelybethesameundercurrentstandards.   Additionally,theirdiscussionsofthescopeofappellatecounselsdutiesaregenerally   consistentwithcurrentstandards(thoughoccasionallyphrasedsomewhatdifferently).   However,counsellitigatingineffectiveassistanceclaimsshouldnotrelyontheSmith   casesformulationoftheoveralltestforobtainingreliefonaclaimofineffective   assistanceofcounsel.Inparticular,asdiscussedfurtherinPartIVD,undercurrent   standards,itisnotenoughtoshowthattheomittedclaimswere arguableor   potentiallymeritorious.Instead,aswithotherclaimsunderStrickland,thedefendant   mustshowa reasonableprobabilitythattheoutcomeoftheappealwouldhavebeen   differentifcounselhadraisedtheotherclaims.(#(# 0  B.0 (#(#StricklandsApplicationtoAppellateIneffectiveAssistance. (# (# 0  Inaverybriefpassage,buriedinalengthy1988capitalopinion,theCalifornia  SupremeCourtindicated,almostinpassing,thatthetwoprongStricklandstandard  appliedtoclaimsagainstbothtrialandappellatecounsel.Peoplev.Hamilton(1988)  45Cal.3d351,377.Itstatedthatpointmoreexplicitlyinasubsequentcapitalopinion:(#(# 0  8 (#(#6ccAdefendantclaimingineffectiveassistanceofcounselunderthefederal  orstateConstitutionsmustshowbothdeficientperformanceunderan  objectivestandardofprofessionalreasonablenessandprejudiceunder  atestofreasonableprobabilityofadifferentoutcome.[Citation.]#c6c#6ccWe  applythatstandardtorepresentationonappeal.[Citations.]Peoplev.  Osband(1996)13Cal.4th622,664,emphasisadded;seealso,e.g.,   #c6c#Peoplev.6ccԀErwin(1997)55#c6cӺ#Cal.App.4th6ccԀ15,20.!   0  U.S.SupremeCourtdecisionshaveconfirmedthattheCaliforniaSupremeCourts # assumptionwascorrect.SeeSmithv.Robbins(2000)528U.S.259,285288. $  Indeed,theStricklandtestappliesbothtoclaimsconcerningtheomissionofparticular %!! issuesfromabriefonthemeritsandtochallengestocounselsfilingofaWendeor &"" Andersbriefraisingnoissues.#c6c5#6cc'##(#(#  ($$ #c6c#6cc0  C.0 (#(#ConsiderationsinEvaluatingAppellateCounselsChoiceofIssues. (# (# 0  Althoughtheineffectiveassistancetestnominallyconsistsoftwodiscreteprongs,  deficientperformanceandprejudice,thecourtshaverecognizedthat(toagreater  extentthanwithclaimsdirectedtotrialcounsel) [t]hesetwoprongspartiallyoverlap  whenevaluatingtheperformanceofappellatecounsel#c6c#6cc.#c6cF#Millerv.Keeney(9thCir.   1989)882F.2d1428,14346cc;accord,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Cook(10thCir.1995)45F.3d   388,394.#c6c#6cc (#(# 0  8 (#(#Inmanyinstances,appellatecounselwillfailtoraiseanissuebecause   sheforeseeslittleornolikelihoodofsuccessonthatissue;indeed,the   weedingoutofweakerissuesiswidelyrecognizedasoneofthe   hallmarksofeffectiveappellateadvocacy.% t #c6c#%t&6ccԀ[Footnote;citations.]#c6cj#6ccLike   othermortals,appellatejudgeshaveafinitesupplyoftimeandtrust;   everyweakissueinanappellatebrieforargumentdetractsfromthe  attentionajudgecandevotetothestrongerissues,andreducesappellate  counsel'scredibilitybeforethecourt.Forthesereasons,alawyerwho  throwsineveryarguablepoint#c6c#6cc #c6c#6ccjustincase#c6c#6cc#c6cL#6ccԄislikelytoserveherclient  lesseffectivelythanonewhoconcentratessolelyonthestrong  arguments.[Fn.]Appellatecounselwillthereforefrequentlyremain  aboveanobjectivestandardofcompetence(prongone)andhavecaused  herclientnoprejudice(prongtwo)forthesamereasonbecauseshe  declinedtoraiseaweakissue.#c6c#6ccԀ#c6c#Millerv.Keeney,supra,882F.2dat  14346cc.   0  Theroleofcounselsprofessionaljudgmentinselectingandweedingoutpotential  issues.WhilesomelanguageinolderCaliforniacasessuggestedthatappellatecounsel  must argueallissuesthatarearguable(#c6c#Peoplev.6ccԀFeggans(1967)67Cal.2d444,  447;InreSmith(1970)#c6c#3Cal.3d192,197),subsequentU.S.SupremeCourtcaseshave   explicitlyrepudiatedanysuchsweepingrule.TheCourthasemphasizedthat,inthe ! interestsofeffectiveadvocacy,appellatecounselmay!anindeedshould!bemuch " morediscriminatinginselectingtheissuestobebriefed.#(#(# 0  8 (#(#Experiencedadvocatessincetimebeyondmemoryhaveemphasizedthe %!! importanceofwinnowingoutweakerargumentsonappealandfocusing &"" ononecentralissueifpossible,% q %q% r %r% s %soratmostonafewkeyissues.Jonesv. '## Barnes(1983)463U.S.745,751752.($$   0  8 (#(#Therecanhardlybeanyquestionabouttheimportanceofhavingthe *&& appellateadvocateexaminetherecordwithaviewtoselectingthemost +'' promisingissuesforreview.....6ccAbriefthatraiseseverycolorableissue  runstheriskofburyinggoodargumentsthosethat,inthewordsofthe  greatadvocateJohnW.Davis,#c6c#6cc #c6c#6ccgoforthejugular,#c6c#6cc[citation]#c6c$#6ccԄinaverbal  moundmadeupofstrongandweakcontentions.[Citation;fn.]#c6cu#6ccԀJones  v.Barnes,supra,at752753.#c6c#6ccu _#  10         0  Counselsprofessionaljudgmentprevailsoverclientsinsistenceonissues.󀀀Indeed,   evenwhentheomittedissueis nonfrivolousandtheclientspecificallydemandsthat   theattorneyraiseit,counselmaydeclinetodoso,providedthatdecisionis   professionallyreasonableinlightofcounselsstrategyintheoverallappeal. Neither   #c6c#6ccAnders#c6c(#noranyotherdecisionofthisCourtsuggests,however,thattheindigent   defendanthasaconstitutionalrighttocompelappointedcounseltopressnonfrivolous   pointsrequestedbytheclient,ifcounsel,asamatterofprofessionaljudgment,decides   nottopresentthosepoints.Jonesv.Barnes,supra,463U.S.at751. (#(# 0  Relativestrengthoftheomittedandbriefedissuesandotherfactors.󀀀UnderJonesv.  Barnesandotherauthorities,the arguablecharacterofanomittedissueisnot  sufficient,byitself,toestablishdeficientperformance,ifappellatecounseldidbrief  otherissues.w _#  11      ׀6ccԀ Notwithstanding#c6c#6ccBarnes,#c6c<#6ccԀitisstillpossibletobringa#c6c#6ccStrickland#c6c#6ccԀclaim  basedoncounsel'sfailuretoraiseaparticularclaim,butitisdifficulttodemonstrate  thatcounselwasincompetent.#c6c=#Smithv.Robbins(2000)528U.S.259,288.(#(# 0  Somefederalopinionshaveidentifiedanumberoffactorsrelevanttoassessmentof  thereasonablenessofappellatecounselschoiceofissues,evenwhilecautioningthat   thelistisnot exhaustiveandtheseare  merely...matterstobeconsidered:(#(# 0  8 (#(#6ccWeretheomittedissues#c6c#6cc #c6c\#6ccsignificantandobvious#c6c#6cc#c6c#6cc?[]]#c6cA#6cc(2)Wasthere  arguablycontraryauthorityontheomittedissues?[]]#c6c#6cc(3)Werethe  omittedissuesclearlystrongerthanthosepresented?[]]#c6c-#6cc(4)Werethe  omittedissuesobjectedtoattrial?[]]#c6c#6cc(5)Werethetrialcourt'srulings  subjecttodeferenceonappeal?[]]#c6c^#6cc(6)Didappellatecounseltestifyin  acollateralproceedingastohisappealstrategyand,ifso,werethe  justificationsreasonable?[]]#c6c#6cc(7)Whatwasappellatecounsel'slevelof  experienceandexpertise?[]]#c6c#6cc(8)Didthepetitionerandappellate   counselmeetandgooverpossibleissues?[]]#c6c#6cc(9)Isthereevidencethat   counselreviewedallthefacts?[]]#c6cG#6cc(10)Weretheomittedissuesdealt   withinotherassignmentsoferror?[]]#c6c#6cc(11)Wasthedecisiontoomitan   issueanunreasonableonewhichonlyanincompetentattorneywould   adopt?[Citations.]#c6c#ԀMapesv.Coyle(6thCir.1999)171F.3d408,427   428( MapesI);Mapesv.Tate(6thCir.2004)388F.3d187,191.    0  Ofthevariousconsiderations,thecourtsgenerallyplacegreatestemphasisona   comparisonbetweenthestrengthoftheissuesomittedwiththatoftheissuesbriefed.  InSmithv.Robbins,theSupremeCourtquoted,withapparentapproval,theSeventh  Circuitsobservation: 6ccGenerally,onlywhenignoredissuesareclearlystrongerthan  thosepresented,willthepresumptionofeffectiveassistanceofcounselbeovercome.#c6c#6cc#c6c#Ԁ  6ccSmithv.Robbins,supra,528U.S.at288,#c6c#Ԁquoting6ccGrayv.Greer#c6co#6ccԀ(7thCir.1986)800  F.2d644,646#c6c#6cc.(#(# 0  Indeed,acommonthreadrunningthroughcaseswhichhavesustainedineffective  assistanceclaimsisthattheomittedissueswerefarstrongerthanthosebriefed.For  example,inJacksonv.Leonardo(2ndCir.1998)162F.3d81,8586,counsels  selectionofissues #c6c?#6cccouldnotreflectaplausiblestrategytopursuemorepromising  grounds,whereher #c6c#6cccursoryappellatebrief...raisedacoupleofhighlydubious  claims,but#c6c#omitteda surewinnerdoublejeopardyargument.6ccHowever,theissues  briefedneednotbefrivolousormarginalinorderforcounselsomissionof  appreciablystrongerclaimstoamounttoineffectiveassistance. (#(# 0  8 (#(#[A]nappellateadvocatemaydeliverdeficientperformanceand " prejudiceadefendantbyomittinga#c6c#6cc #c6cX#6ccdeadbangwinner,#c6c#6cc#c6c#6cceventhough # counselmayhavepresentedstrongbutunsuccessfulclaimsonappeal.#c6c8# $  [Citation.]Althoughcourtshavenotdefinedtheterm6cc #c6c)#6ccdeadbang %!! winner,#c6co#6cc#c6c#6ccweconcludeitisanissuewhichwasobviousfromthetrial &"" record,#c6c#Ԁ[citation]6ccand#c6c#6ccԀonewhichwouldhaveresultedinareversalon '## appeal.#c6c #ԀUnitedStatesv.Cook(10thCir.1995)45F.3d388,395, ($$ emphasisinoriginal.)%%   0  Forexample,inCook, counselpresentedseveralstrongbutunsuccessfulclaimson +'' directappeal[citation],6ccԀ[but]counselomitteda#c6c#6cc#c6c#6ccdeadbang#c6c`#6cc#c6c#6ccwinner#c6c#6cc!aconflictof  interestissuewhichshouldhave#c6c:#6cc #c6c#6ccleapedoutuponevenacasualreadingof[the]  transcript.#c6c#6cc#c6c#Cook,supra,45F.3dat395.(#(# 0  Importanceoftheissuetotheoveralldisposition.Inadditiontothecomparative  strengthsofthebriefedandomittedissues,anotherrelevantconsiderationshouldbe   theissuesimportancetotheoveralldispositionofthedefendantscase!including   whichportionsofthejudgmenttherespectiveclaimsaddress.Anumberofcaseshave   foundineffectiveassistancewherecounselsargumentsfocusedonlyonthe   conviction,butnotthesentence,orviceversa. (#(# 0  Atleastonecircuithasalsocautionedagainsttherisksofbypassingarelatively   straightforwardissueinordertolimittheappealtoamoreambitious,butdifficult   argument. (#(# 0  8 (#(#[I]insomesituationslawyersthinkusuallyinerrorthatbyomittinga  goodargument,theycantherebyincreasethechanceofprevailingona  moredoubtfulargumentdirectedtoamorefarreachingresult.  However,inthisinstance,suchacalculationwouldhavebeen  manifestlyunreasonableunderanobjectivestandard,giventhe  comparativestrengthsofthetwodifferentattacks,theopportunityto  makeboth,andthestakesforthedefendant.CiriloMunozv.United  States(1stCir.2005)404F.3d527,531.   0  Thus,inCiriloMunoz,counselsbriefingofevidentiarychallengesdirectedtothe  validityoftheconvictiondidnotexcusehisfailuretochallengethesufficiencyofthe  evidencetosupportacrucialsentencingenhancement.Theomittedargument 6ccwould  nothavedetractedfromtheevidentiarychallengetotheconvictionbutwouldhave  builtuponit,anditrepresentedthedifferencebetweenalongjailsentenceanda#c6c#6cclife#c6c#6cc   sentence.#c6c6#CiriloMunoz,supra,at531.6cc!(#(# 0  Anticipatingoradvocatingchangesinthelaw.AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourthas # observed, counselservesboththecourtandhisclientbyadvocatingchangesinthe $  lawifargumentcanbemadesupportingchange.#c6c#Peoplev.6ccԀFeggan(1967)67Cal.2d %!! 444,447;InreSmith(1970)3#c6cL#Cal.3d6ccԀ192,197.Thatsaid,however,itisextremely &"" difficulttopredicateasuccessfulineffectiveassistanceclaimaboutfailuretobriefan '## argumentwhich,atthetimeoftheappeal,appeareduntenableunderextantcaselaw.($$(#(# 0  InSmithv.Murray(1986)477U.S.527,534,counselraisedanevidentiaryclaimat *&& trialbutthen consciouslyelectednottopursuetheclaimbeforetheSupremeCourt +'' ofVirginiabecauseitappeareddoomedunderarecentdecisionofthatcourt. With  thebenefitofhindsight,thedefendantchallengedthatomissioninlightofalater  federalcircuitopinion,whichrepudiatedthestateprecedentwhichhaddeterred  counselfromraisingtheissue.However,theU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatcounsels  decision underthecurrentstateofthelawtoforegothatevidentiaryissueinfavor  ofotherseeminglystrongerclaims fellwellwithinthewiderangeofprofessionally   competentassistance: Itwilloftenbethecasethateventhemostinformedappellate   counselwillfailtoanticipateastateappellatecourtswillingnesstoreconsideraprior   holdingorwillunderestimatethelikelihoodthatafederalhabeascourtwillrepudiate   anestablishedstaterule.Id.at535. (#(# 0  NotwithstandingSmithv.Murray,therearesituationswherecompetentappellate   counselreasonablyshouldbeabletoanticipatethatanadverseprecedentmaybe   overruled,suchaswheretheU.S.SupremeCourtortheCaliforniaSupremeCourthas   grantedreviewtoreexaminethatprecedentorhasotherwisesignaleditswillingness  todoso.(#(# 0  Clientrelationsandcommunications.󀀀Althoughthestrengthoftheomittedissues  remainsthepreeminentconsideration,otheraspectsoftheattorneysrepresentation  whichsuggestalackofprofessionalismoranindifferencetotheclientsinterestsmay  helpcontributetoareviewingcourtsfindingofdeficientperformance.Theultimate  basisforhabeasreliefinarecentcapitalcasewasappellatecounselsfailuretobrief  ameritoriousjurorbiasissueButthehabeascourtmadeplainthatitviewedthe  omissionofthatargument(whichwasoneofmanyissuessuggestedbytheclient)as  partofapatternofneglectandlackofcommunications.Appellatecounsel never  metwith[theclient]orevenspokewithhimoverthetelephone,didnotevenwrite  tohimuntil11monthsafterherappointment, ignoredhissuggestions,tellinghim  theywerefrivolous,didnotadvisehimofhisrighttofileapro.per.supplemental  brief,anddidnotsendhimtheopeningbriefuntilamonthafteritwasfiled.Franklin   v.Anderson(6thCir.2006)434F.3d412,429430.!(#(# 0  D.0 (#(#UnderstandingStricklandsPrejudiceProngintheAppellateContext# (# (# 0  Asnotedearlier,theU.S.SupremeCourthasappliedtheStricklandprejudice %!! requirementtoallclaimsinvolvingfailuretobriefparticularclaim!regardlessof &"" whetherappellatecounselfiledameritsbriefraisingotherissuesorfiledaWendeor '## Andersbriefraisingnoclaims.Smithv.Robbins(2000)528U.S.259,285288.Even ($$ inthelattercontext,counselsfailuretoidentifyandbriefan arguableissueisonly )%%  sufficienttoestablishthe deficientperformanceprong,butdoesnotexcusethe *&& necessityofestablishingprejudice:x _#  12      ׀(#(#  0  8 (#(##c6c#6ccRespondentmustfirstshowthathiscounselwasobjectively  unreasonable,[citingStrickland]#c6c#6ccinfailingtofindarguableissuesto  appealthatis,thatcounselunreasonablyfailedtodiscovernonfrivolous  issuesandtofileameritsbriefraisingthem.If[thedefendant]succeeds   insuchashowing,hethenhastheburdenofdemonstratingprejudice.   Thatis,hemustshowareasonableprobabilitythat,butforhiscounsel's   unreasonablefailuretofileameritsbrief,hewouldhaveprevailedon   hisappeal.% | #c6c#%|% } %}6cc[Citation;fn.]#c6c"#6ccSmithv.Robbins,supra,528U.S.at285286.#c6cx#6cc    0  InlightoftheU.S.SupremeCourtsexplicitapplicationofStricklandsprejudice   prongtoappellateineffectiveassistanceclaims,someofthestatementsinolder   Californiacasescannolongerbeconsiderbinding.AsdiscussedinPartIVA,in   suchcasesasSmith,Rhoden,andLang,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtessentially  grantedreliefuponafindingofdeficientperformancealone(counselsfailuretobrief   arguableor crucialissues),withoutdeterminingtheultimatemeritsofthoseissues.  ЀHowever,aStricklandprejudiceanalysisrequiresthereviewingcourttocomecloser  todeterminingtheultimatemeritsoftheomittedissue,thansuggestedintheearlier  Californiacases.Whileadefendantstilldoesnotneedtoestablishthathenecessarily  wouldhaveprevailed,#c6c#6ccԀhemustatleastshowa reasonableprobabilityofamore  favorabledispositionoftheappeal.(#(# 0  Note,however,thatthe reasonableprobabilityanalysisfocusesonwhetherthe  defendant wouldhaveprevailedonappeal.Smithv.Robbins,supra,528U.S.at  286,emphasisadded.ThemanyfederalcasesapplyingStricklandtoappellate   ineffectiveassistanceclaimsconsistentlyframetheinquiryintermsoftheprobability   ofsuccess(i.e.,areversalorremand)inthespecific proceedingwhichisthesubject   oftheclaim!theappeal.#c6c`#6ccMasonv.Hanks(7thCir.1996)97F.3d887,893. (#(# 0  8 (#(#[I]nordertodetermineprejudice,thecourtmustfirstperform areview   ofthemeritsofthe[omittedorpoorlypresented]claim.[Citation]Ifthe   Courtfindsthattheneglectedclaimwouldhaveareasonable   probabilityofsuccessonappeal,then...itisnecessarytofind appellate   counselsperformanceprejudicialbecauseitaffectedtheoutcomeofthe  appeal.[Citation]Heathv.Jones(11thCir.1991)941F.2d1126,  1132;emphasisadded;seealso,e.g.,Joinerv.UnitedStates(11thCir.  1997)103F.3d961,963;UnitedStatesv.Cook(10thCir.1995)45F.3d  388,395.)   0  #c6c!#6ccThedefendantmustshowareasonableprobabilitythathewouldhaveobtaineda  reversalorremand,ifappellatecounselhadraisedtheomittedissue(s).But,itisnot  necessarytodemonstratewhatwouldhavehappenedonremandinthetrialcourtafter  theappeal.󀀀Thatis,itisnotnecessaryforthedefendanttoshowthat,followinga  reversalorremand,hewouldhaveobtainedanacquittalorothermorefavorableresult  onretrial.(#(# #c6c%# V.0  ALTERNATIVEREMEDIESANDPROCEDURESFORRAISING  INEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFAPPELLATECOUNSEL!RECALLING   THEREMITTITURVS.HABEASREVIEWOFTHEUNDERLYING ! CLAIMS. "(#(# 0  Therearetwoalternativeproceduresforpursuinganappellateineffectiveassistance $  claimintheCaliforniacourts.Thedefendant(orhisnewcounsel)mayfileamotion % ! torecalltheremittitur(e.g.,Peoplev.Valenzuela(1985)175Cal.App.3d381)orraise &!" theclaiminahabeascorpuspetition(eitheraloneorinconjunctionwithotherclaims) '"# (e.g.,6ccInreSmith(1970)3#c6c:+#6ccCal.3d#c6c+#6ccԀ192;InreBanks(1971)4#c6c+#6ccCal.4th#c6cB,#6ccԀ337#c6c,#).The (#$ motiontorecallprocedureisspecificallyauthorizedbytheappellaterules.Cal.Rules )$% ofCourt,rule8.272(c)(2)( Onaparty'soritsownmotionoronstipulation,andfor *%& goodcause,thecourtmaystayaremittitur'sissuanceforareasonableperiodororder +&' itsrecall).Theuseofhabeasforthispurposeisequallywellestablished. Thewrit  ofhabeascorpusmaybeusedbyadefendantlawfullyincustodytoseekrelieffrom  defaultinperfectinganappeal.[Citations.]InreSerrano(1995)10Cal.4th447,454.(#(# 0  Evenifthedefendantemploysthevehicleofahabeaspetition,hemayseektheremedy  ofrecallingtheremittitur,ortheappellatecourtmayelectthatremedy.Thus,inSmith,   upondeterminingthatappellatecounselhadunreasonablyneglectedtoraise crucial   ...assignmentsoferror,theSupremeCourt treat[ed]thepetitionforhabeascorpus   asanapplicationtorecalltheremittiturandtransferredthemattertotheappellate   court withdirectionstorecallitsremittitur,vacateitsdecision,reinstatetheappeal,   andappointothercounselforappellant.InreSmith(1970)3Cal.3d192,203204. (#(# 0  Recallingtheremittiturappearstobethemostcommonlyadoptedremedyamongthe   publishedCaliforniacasesfindingineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounsel.   Alternatively,however,thereviewingcourtmaybypassthatprocedureandusethe  habeaspetitiontodeterminetheultimatemeritsoftheissueswhichpreviousappellate  counselhadneglectedtobrief.AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourtcommentedin  Banks:(#(# 0  8 (#(#6ccWherethecasecomesbeforeussolelyontheissueofdenialofcounsel  onappeal(particularlyinapro.per.petition),weordinarilyreinstatethe  appealandremandtotheCourtofAppealtoreconsideritsdecisionwith  theaidofeffectiveadvocacybyappellatecounsel.[Citation.]#c6c5#6ccHowever,  competentcounselforbothpetitionerandrespondenthavenowfully  briefedandarguedthemeritsoftheappealbeforethiscourt,and,in  viewofthehistoryofthecase,conservationofscarcejudicialresources  warrantsourpassinguponthemeritsoftheappeal....InreBanks(1971)  4Cal.3d337,343;seealso,e.g.,InreSpears(1984)157#c6c6#Cal.App.3d  1203,1214.    0  Tacticalconsiderationsinchoiceofremedies.Inlightofthesealternatives,counsel " pursuingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofpriorappellatecounselfacesatactical # choiceofeitherexplicitlyseekingtheremedyofrecallingtheremittitur(eitherina $  motionunderrule8.272(c)(2)orastherequestedreliefinahabeaspetition)orasking %!! thehabeascourttousethepetitionitselftodeterminethemeritsoftheomittedAs &"" reflectedbytheSupremeCourtscommentsinBanks,useofthehabeaspetitionto '## decidetheomittedclaimsmayoffertheprospectofaspeedierfavorableresolutionfor ($$ theclient.Additionally,ifcounselispresentingtheineffectiveassistanceclaimin )%% statecourtprimarilyforthepurposeof exhaustingitbecauseheorshebelievesit *&& willreceiveamorefavorablereceptioninfederalcourt,counselmaypreferthatthe +'' statecourtnotdecidethemerits,particularlyinanopinionwhichcouldthenbethe  subjectofAEDPAdeference(cf.28U.S.C.2254(d)(1)).(#(# 0  Nonetheless,inmanycases,therewilllikelybeadecidedadvantageinexpressly  askingthestatecourttorecalltheremittitur,especiallyiftheoneyearAEDPAstatute  oflimitations(28U.S.C.2244(d))hasalreadyrunasofthetimeoffilingofthe   motionorpetition.󀀀Evenifitisnotfirmlyconvincedoftheultimatemeritsofthe   omittedclaims,anappellatecourtmaybeinclinedtogivethedefendant hisdayin   courtifitisclearthatpriorappellatecounselunreasonablyfailedtopursuepotentially   meritoriousclaims.Indeed,asStricklanditselfinstructs,the reasonableprobability   inquiryrequiresonly aprobabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidenceinthe   outcome.6ccStricklandv.Washington(1984)466U.S.668,#c6cA#Ԁ694. 6cc[A]defendantneed   notshowthatcounsel'sdeficientconduct% m #c6cAB#%mB% n %nB6ccmore% o #c6cC#%o4C6cclikelythannotalteredtheoutcomein   thecase.Id.at693.Consequently,anappellatecourtapplyingthatstandardcanand   shouldrecallaremittitur,evenif,afterfullbriefingontheclaim#c6cuC#Ԁonthereinstated  appeal,itmayultimatelyaffirm.(#(# 0  Inthepast,theremayhavebeenlittlepracticaldifferencebetweenlosingonthehabeas  petitionraisingtheineffectiveassistanceclaimorlosingonthereinstatedappeal.But,  inviewoftheAEDPAstatuteoflimitations,thisdistinctionmayhavecrucial  implicationsforadefendantsabilitytotakehisclaimsintofederalcourt.Whilea   properlyfiledstatehabeaspetition tollstheAEDPAstatuteifithasnotyetexpired  (28U.S.C.2244(d)(2)),itcannot restarttheclockifthestatutehasalreadyrun.  Incontrast,asuccessfulmotiontorecalltheremittiturwillreinstatethedirectappeal  andrestorethecasetoaprefinalitystatus.Consequently,eveniftheappellatecourt  ultimatelyrejectstheclaim,thedefendantwillstillhavetheopportunitytopursuehis  claimsinfederalcourt.(#(# 0  Asecondpotentialadvantageofrecallingtheremittituristhatreinstatementofthe   appealwillalsorevivethedefendantsrighttoappointmentofcounsel.