Yes. A poor person must get a lawyer for their first appeal, even if they have to ask for permission. This is because the first appeal is the most important chance to find and fix mistakes made in the original trial. A regular person, especially someone like Halbert with learning disabilities, can't be expected to understand all the complicated legal rules and paperwork to file an effective appeal on their own. Without a lawyer, their 'right' to ask for an appeal is meaningless.

No. The Constitution only guarantees a lawyer for the first *automatic* appeal. Halbert's appeal was not automatic; it was discretionary. The state made a reasonable decision to save money by not providing lawyers for these kinds of appeals, since people who plead guilty usually don't have strong cases. Halbert knew he was giving up this right when he decided to plead no contest instead of going to trial.

Yes. The court says that the Fourteenth Amendment means that people like Halbert should get a free lawyer when they appeal for the first time. This is because the appeals court is where mistakes can be fixed, and without a lawyer, it's really hard for them to have a fair chance, especially if they're not well-educated or have disabilities.

Justice Thomas disagrees and thinks that the court is giving people more rights than the law says they should have. He also thinks that Halbert could have chosen not to have a lawyer and that the court should respect his choice. Thomas says Michigan's system is fair because it treats people who admit guilt differently from those who say they are innocent, which makes sense.

—held "that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for defendants, convicted on their pleas, who seek access to first-tier review in the Michigan Court of Appeals."

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person who pleads guilty in Michigan has a right to the assistance of appellate counsel on his or her first-tier appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Although there is no federal constitutional right to appeal, the United States Supreme Court has held that if a state provides for first-tier "appellate review of criminal convictions," then "the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses" of the Fourteenth Amendment require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants.

The Federal Constitution imposes on the States no obligation to provide appellate review of criminal convictions

In Halbert, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Michigan Supreme Court's view of the right to appointed counsel in seeking appeal in this Court, holding that indigent defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere in a Michigan court have a federal constitutional right to the appointment of appellate counsel with regard to first-tier review in this Court.

This is because the state habeas court "looks to the merits of the clai [m]" of ineffective assistance, no other court has addressed the claim, and "defendants pursuing first-tier review... are generally ill equipped to represent themselves" because they do not have a brief from counsel or an opinion of the court addressing their claim of error.

If the defendant did so, the trial court shall appoint appellate counsel to represent the defendant.

The Court noted that whether it is "formally categorized as the decision of an appeal or the disposal of a leave application, the Court of Appeals' ruling on a plea-convicted defendant's claims provides the first, and likely the only, direct review the defendant's conviction and sentence will receive."

We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no genuinely arguable issue.

Navigating the appellate process without a lawyer's assistance is a perilous endeavor for a layperson, and well beyond the competence of individuals... who have little education, learning disabilities, and mental impairments

Yes. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking first-tier appellate review from a plea-based conviction, even if that review is discretionary. This case is properly aligned with Douglas v. California, which requires counsel for first appeals, rather than Ross v. Moffitt, which does not require counsel for subsequent, discretionary appeals. The court's reasoning has two main components. First, Michigan’s Court of Appeals functions as an error-correcting court that adjudicates applications for leave to appeal based on the merits of the claims, making it the defendant's first and likely only opportunity for meaningful review. This contrasts with the higher courts in Ross, which review cases for broader public importance. Second, indigent defendants pursuing first-tier review, especially those like Halbert with limited education and mental impairments, are ill-equipped to navigate the complex procedural requirements of an appeal pro se. Without the aid of trained counsel to review the record, frame legal issues, and draft a coherent brief, a defendant's statutory right to seek an appeal is more formal than real.

No. The Constitution does not require the appointment of counsel for a discretionary appeal, and Michigan's distinction between trial-based and plea-based appeals is rational. This case is controlled by Ross v. Moffitt because Halbert's appeal is discretionary, not as of right. The holding in Douglas v. California is explicitly limited to first appeals 'as of right.' Michigan's system does not create an invidious distinction; it is a sensible attempt to allocate scarce judicial and legal resources away from plea-based appeals, which are more limited in scope, have a clearer record, and are less likely to involve meritorious claims. A pro se defendant is not left with a 'barren record,' as they have trial transcripts and motions filed by trial counsel, providing an adequate basis for the appellate court to decide whether to grant review. Even if a right to counsel existed, Halbert validly waived it during his plea colloquy by acknowledging he was giving up his appeal as of right.

Yes. The Court holds that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere and seek first-tier appellate review in the Michigan Court of Appeals. This is because the appellate process is complex and challenging for laypersons, particularly for those with limited education or mental impairments, and the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision on a plea-convicted defendant's claims often represents the first and potentially only substantial review of the conviction and sentence.

Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that the majority's decision improperly extends constitutional rights and fails to adhere to specific constitutional provisions. He maintains that the right to counsel in these circumstances is not absolute and can be waived, as was the case with Halbert. Thomas argues that Michigan's system is constitutional because it does not engage in the sort of invidious discrimination against indigent defendants that Douglas condemns, and that Michigan has simply recognized the difference between defendants who plead guilty and those who maintain their innocence.

Halbert v. Michigan

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot