Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialhabeas corpusdue processrespondent
defendantappealtrialdue processrespondent

Related Cases

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987
View Case »
Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 100 S.Ct. 402, 62 L.Ed.2d 355
View Case »
U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 741
View Case »
In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813, 855 P.2d 391, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373
View Case »
People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142, 599 P.2d 587, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341

Facts

Respondent, an indigent convicted of forgery in two separate cases, was represented by court-appointed counsel during his trial and initial appeals. After his convictions were affirmed, he sought discretionary review from the North Carolina Supreme Court but was denied counsel for this appeal. He subsequently filed for habeas corpus relief in federal court, which was denied, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, asserting that he was entitled to counsel for both the state and federal discretionary appeals.

Respondent, an indigent, while represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted of forgery in state court in two separate cases, and his convictions were affirmed on his appeals of right by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Issue

Whether the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking discretionary appeals in state courts and for petitions for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

We are asked in this case to decide whether Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), which requires appointment of counsel for indigent state defendants on their first appeal as of right, should be extended to require counsel for discretionary state appeals and for applications for review in this Court.

Rule

The Due Process Clause does not require states to provide counsel for discretionary appeals, and the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate that indigent defendants be provided with free counsel for discretionary appeals to the state Supreme Court or for petitions for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require North Carolina to provide respondent with counsel on his discretionary appeal to the State Supreme Court.

Analysis

The Court distinguished between the trial stage, where the right to counsel is fundamental, and the appellate stage, where the defendant seeks to overturn a prior determination of guilt. It noted that while the state must provide counsel for the first appeal as of right, it is not obligated to do so for discretionary appeals. The Court emphasized that the indigent defendant had sufficient materials to present his case without counsel, thus not being denied meaningful access to the appellate system.

The Court noted that while no one would agree that the State may simply dispense with the trial stage of proceedings without a criminal defendant's consent, it is clear that the State need not provide any appeal at all.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that North Carolina is not required to provide counsel for indigent defendants seeking discretionary appeals or certiorari.

Held: The Supreme Court may deny certiorari even though it believes that the decision of the Court of Appeals was incorrect.

Who won?

The State of North Carolina prevailed because the Supreme Court found that the appointment of counsel for discretionary appeals is not constitutionally required.

The Court of Appeals reversed the two District Court judgments, holding that respondent was entitled to the assistance of counsel at state expense both on his petition for review in the North Carolina Supreme Court and on his petition for certiorari to this Court.

You must be