Ross v. Moffit
417 U.S. 600 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment do not require a state to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant seeking discretionary appellate review in the state's highest court or the U.S. Supreme Court. A state's constitutional obligation is met by providing counsel for the defendant's first appeal as of right.
Facts:
- Claude Franklin Moffitt, an indigent person, was charged with forgery and uttering a forged instrument in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
- Moffitt was separately charged with the same offenses in Guilford County, North Carolina.
- He pleaded not guilty to the charges in both counties.
- Following separate trials, Moffitt was convicted on all charges in both the Mecklenburg County and Guilford County Superior Courts.
Procedural Posture:
- Due to his indigency, Claude Franklin Moffitt was provided court-appointed counsel for his separate trials in two North Carolina Superior Courts (trial courts).
- After being convicted in both trials, Moffitt appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) and was again provided with court-appointed counsel.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions.
- For one case, Moffitt was denied appointed counsel to help him prepare a petition for discretionary review to the North Carolina Supreme Court (highest state court). For the other case, counsel was provided, but the court denied review.
- Moffitt was also denied appointed counsel to petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Moffitt filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in two U.S. District Courts, which were denied.
- Moffitt, as appellant, appealed the denials to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, with the state as appellee, reversed the district courts, holding that Moffitt had a constitutional right to counsel for these discretionary appeals.
- The State of North Carolina successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to provide an indigent defendant with counsel for discretionary appeals to the state's highest court or for petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The Fourteenth Amendment does not obligate a state to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant's discretionary appeals that follow an initial appeal as of right. The Court distinguished between the trial and appellate stages, noting that at trial, counsel acts as a 'shield' to protect the presumption of innocence, whereas on appeal, counsel acts as a 'sword' to challenge a valid conviction. While the Equal Protection Clause requires 'meaningful access' to the appellate system, it does not demand 'absolute equality.' After a defendant has had one appeal as of right with the assistance of counsel, they possess the trial record, a counseled brief, and an appellate court opinion, which are sufficient materials for a higher court to determine whether to grant discretionary review. The state's duty is not to duplicate the legal resources of a wealthy defendant but to provide an adequate opportunity for claims to be heard.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The concepts of fairness and equality that require counsel for a first appeal of right logically extend to subsequent discretionary appeals. The dissent, adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, argued that there is 'no logical basis for differentiation between appeals of right and permissive review procedures.' Preparing petitions for certiorari is a highly specialized and technical task that an indigent defendant cannot be expected to navigate effectively without legal assistance. Denying counsel at this critical stage creates a significant disadvantage for the indigent compared to a wealthy defendant, undermining the principle of equal justice, as discretionary review in a state's highest court may be the 'most meaningful review the conviction will receive.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly circumscribes the scope of the right to counsel established in Gideon v. Wainwright and Douglas v. California. It draws a clear constitutional line between a first appeal as of right, which is treated as a fundamental stage of the adjudicatory process requiring counsel, and subsequent discretionary appeals, which are not. By doing so, the Court clarified that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses do not mandate the elimination of all economic disparities in the justice system. The ruling establishes that 'meaningful access' to justice for indigents is the standard, not 'absolute equality' with defendants who can afford to retain counsel at every conceivable stage of review.
Unlock the full brief for Ross v. Moffit