Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District
145 L. Ed. 2d 597, 528 U.S. 152, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 502 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation at trial does not extend to direct appeals from a criminal conviction.
Facts:
- Salvador Martinez worked as an office assistant at a law firm in Santa Ana, California, and described himself as a self-taught paralegal.
- Martinez was accused of converting $6,000 of a client's money to his own use.
- He was charged with grand theft and fraudulent appropriation of property.
- Martinez elected to represent himself at his criminal trial.
- He claimed he chose self-representation because he believed his past criminal record would cause any attorney to disbelieve him.
Procedural Posture:
- Martinez was tried before a jury in a California state court.
- The jury acquitted Martinez on one count of grand theft but convicted him on one count of embezzlement.
- The trial court found that Martinez had three prior convictions and sentenced him under California's 'three strikes' law to a mandatory term of 25-years-to-life in prison.
- Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- Martinez also filed a motion to represent himself on appeal and to waive his right to counsel.
- The California Court of Appeal denied his motion for self-representation.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied Martinez's application for a writ of mandate.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among lower courts on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to represent oneself at trial, established in Faretta v. California, extend to a direct appeal from a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The constitutional right to self-representation does not extend to an appeal from a criminal conviction. The three main arguments from Faretta—historical evidence, the structure of the Sixth Amendment, and respect for individual autonomy—do not apply with the same force in the appellate context. Historically, there was no recognized right of self-representation on appeal, as the right of appeal itself is a relatively recent statutory creation. Structurally, the Sixth Amendment's protections apply specifically to 'criminal prosecutions,' meaning the trial phase, and the amendment does not include any right to appeal. While autonomy interests are still present, they are significantly diminished after a conviction, as the defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and the state's overriding interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice outweighs the appellant's interest in self-representation.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, I agree with the Court's judgment. The holding in Faretta v. California is sound for the trial context, but it does not follow that a similar right of self-representation exists on appeal. The appellate system involves different considerations, as the majority opinion correctly explains, which justifies not extending the Faretta right.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
Yes, I agree with the Court's judgment. While joining the Court's opinion, it is worth noting that some judges have expressed concerns about the negative practical consequences of the Faretta right at the trial level. However, without strong empirical evidence that Faretta has proven counterproductive, there is no basis to reconsider its constitutional assumptions.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, the right to self-representation does not extend to an appeal. The reasoning is simpler than the majority's: there is no constitutional right to an appeal at all. Since a state is not constitutionally required to provide any appellate review, it can a fortiori provide for an appeal with conditions, such as requiring representation by counsel. Forcing counsel on an appellant is permissible because the state could offer even less, such as a non-adversarial review by a panel of experts, without violating the Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision clearly delineates the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, confining the core holding of Faretta to the trial stage. It establishes that the constitutional status of a defendant changes fundamentally upon conviction, diminishing certain autonomy-based rights in favor of the state's interest in the efficiency and integrity of the appellate process. By grounding appellate rights in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses rather than the Sixth Amendment, the Court reinforces the distinction between trial and post-conviction proceedings. This ruling solidifies the state's authority to mandate counsel for appellants to ensure that legal issues are framed coherently for appellate review.
