Martinez, Salvador v. Court of Appeals of California (01/12/2000)

By: Margaret Magnarelli, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self- representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?

Brief

Salvador Martinez believes in defending himself.

The self-trained paralegal was working for a Santa Ana, Calif. law firm when a client gave him $6,000 to bail her boyfriend out of jail. The bail was never posted.

When Martinez was accused of pocketing the money, he waived his rights to an attorney and represented himself at trial. Martinez, who had two prior convictions in Texas, was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Martinez still wanted to act as his own attorney on appeal.

""He wrote the appellate court and said he didnt want a lawyer, so they turned him down for an appeal,"" said Supervising Deputy Attorney General Robert Foster, who will represent California in front of the court.

After his request to represent himself at the state supreme court level was also denied, Martinez filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing his right to plead his case at the appeals level.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 19, 1999, allowing Martinez to proceed in forma pauperis, and limited review to the question above.

Implicit in the issue of whether convicted criminals have a constitutional right to defend themselves on appeal is the extent to which federal law can interfere with state mandates. The California Supreme Court has ruled that criminal defendants cannot represent themselves on appeal, as an appeal is more legally complex than a trial.

Foster said that a constitutional right to represent oneself in an appeal does not exist because the U.S. Constitution does not compel any state to have an appellate system.

""As a practical matter all states have decided to set up one,"" Foster said. ""Once the state establishes its court of appeals it is free to structure it any way it chooses.""

The appellate court settles disputes of law, rather than fact, Foster said.

""It can only do that by having lawyers on both sides,"" Foster said.

Jona Goldschmidt, a criminal justice professor at Loyola University of Chicago, disagrees.

""People have a constitutional right to self representation, access to the court and a meaningful opportunity to be heard,"" Goldschmidt said. ""The constitution and the courts make no distinction between trial and appellate courts when in comes to the principle of self representation.""

Martinez will not be exercising his right of self-representation before the Supreme Court. On May 17, 1999, the Court appointed Washington, D.C. attorney Robert Maines to represent him.

On Jan. 12, 2000, a unanimous Court affirmed, holding that criminal defendants do not have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves on appeal.

""Our experience has taught us that (self-representation) is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney,"" Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court.

Stevens emphasized the narrowness of the Court's holding, saying, ""It does not preclude the States from recognizing such a right under their own constitutions. Its impact on the law will be minimal, because a lay appellant's rights to participate in appellate proceedings have long been limited by the well-established conclusions that he has no right to be present during appellate proceedings.""

Even though the decision was unanimous, three justice--Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia--chimed in with concurrences.