The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 9, 1999
Decision: Wednesday, January 12, 2000
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Right to Counsel

Advocates

Robert Foster (San Diego, California, argued the cause for respondent)
Ronald D. Maines (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Salvador Martinez, a self-described self-taught paralegal with 25 years of experience at 12 different law firms, was working for a Santa Ana, California law firm when a client gave him $6,000.00 to bail her boyfriend out of jail. The bail was never posted and Martinez was subsequently charged with grand theft and the fraudulent appropriation of the property of another. Martinez chose to represent himself at trial before a jury, which acquitted him of theft, but convicted him of embezzlement. Martinez then filed a timely notice of appeal, a motion to represent himself, and a waiver of counsel. The motion to represent himself was denied by the California Court of Appeal. The court explained: "There is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as of right. The right to counsel on appeal stems from the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, not from the Sixth Amendment....The denial of self-representation at this level does not violate due process or equal protection guarantees."

Question

Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to choose to represent himself on direct appeal?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that here is no constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. "We are not aware of any historical consensus establishing a right of self-representation on appeal," wrote Justice Stevens for the Court. Noting that the rights established by the Sixth Amendment "are presented strictly as rights that are available in preparation for trial and at the trial itself" and that the Amendment "does not include any right to appeal," Justice Stevens concluded, "[i]t necessarily follows that the Amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to self-representation on appeal." Justice Stevens added "[o]ur experience has taught us that "a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney." Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, and Antonin Scalia wrote concurring opinions.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Full Opinion: Criminal Procedure, Right to Counsel: 9 - 0
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, authored a special concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Thomas
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Martinez v. Court of Appeals of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_7809/>
(last visited ).