CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - RIGHT TO COUNSEL - DUE PROCESS ENTITLES CONVICTED INDIGENTS TO APPOINTED COUNSEL IN PETITIONING FOR DISCRETIONARY APPEALS

• NCJ Number: 17747
• Journal: Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (MARCH 1974) Pages: 365-372
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1974
• Length: 8 pages
• Corporate Author: Vanderbilt University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

IN MOFFITT V. ROSS (1973), THE COURT HELD THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES INDIGENT DEFENDANTS SEEKING PERMISSIVE APPEAL TO BE GIVEN THE SAME ASSISTANCE OF COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED AT INITIAL APPEALS.

Abstract

THE REASONING OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WAS THAT IF DENIAL OF COUNSEL ON AN INTERMEDIATE APPEAL AS OF RIGHT SO PREJUDICES A DEFENDANT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION ARE VIOLATED (DOUGLAS V. CALIFORNIA, 372 U.S. 353, 1963), THEN REFUSAL TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO ASSIST IN SEEKING RELIEF IN THE HIGHEST COURT CONSTITUTES A COMPARABLE DEPRIVATION. THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY RECEIVED COUNSEL FOR ONE APPEAL WAS NOT SEEN AS A MITIGATING FACTOR. THE AUTHOR, AFTER REVIEWING PERTINENT STATE AND FEDERAL CASE LAW, CONCLUDES THAT TO EXTEND THE RIGHT TO CUNSEL TO CERTIORARI APPLICATIONS MERELY COMPLETES THE PROCESS OF RECOGNIZING THAT REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL IS A NECESSARY PART OF ANY TRULY FAIR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.