From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Martinez v. California Court of Appeals
Martinez v. California Court of Appeals
Salvador Martinez v. Court of Appeals of Cal., Fourth
Appellate Dist.
History of the Case
Salvador Martinez worked as an office assistant for a law
firm, and in the service of that firm he was given $6,000
by the girlfriend of a client for bail. This bail was not
posted, and he was accused of embezzlement and theft,
and further was convicted and acquitted respectively on
these charges. He filed an appeal, a waiver of counsel,
and a motion to represent himself (a "pro se" motion).
Supreme Court of the United States
When the Court of Appeals of California rejected the pro
Argued November 9, 1999 se motion, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
Decided January 12, 2000 agreed to hear the argument.[1]
Full case Anthony Faretta v. State of California
name
Oral Arguments
Prior history On writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
The counsel for the appellant, Ronald Maines, argued
of California
that Due process coupled with the decision in Faretta re-
Holding quired the extension of a constitutional right for crimi-
An appellant in a criminal case does not have the nal defendants to refuse to have a court appointed lawyer
constitutional right to refuse counsel on direct appeal. argue the appeal, thus requiring the right to extend fur-
ther to allow criminal defendants to argue their own ap-
Court membership
peals. This would require any appellant who was a crim-
inal defendant to be allowed, given that the court opted
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist for oral arguments, to be allowed to argue their own case
as a constitutional right.
Associate Justices The argument of the counsel for the appellee, Robert
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O’Connor Foster, held that there were substantial differences be-
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy tween initial trials and appeals courts, therefore the ex-
David Souter · Clarence Thomas tension of Faretta to the current question was overreach-
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
ing. Mr. Maines contended that there must be more than
Case opinions simple "differentiation" between the two situations, but
there must be a difference consequential to the holding
Majority Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, in Faretta to distinguish the trial and appellate situa-
Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg
tions.[2]
Concurrence Scalia
Concurrence Kennedy Holdings of the Court
Concurrence Breyer Justice Stevens states in the opinion that "Our conclusion
in Faretta extended only to a defendant’s “constitutional
The Supreme Court case, Martinez v. California Court of Ap- right to conduct his own defense.”" Stevens affirms the
peals 528 U.S. 152 (2000), decided an appellant who was
peals, decision of the lower court that "There is no constitu-
the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assis- tional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as
tance of counsel on direct appeals. This case is in contrast of right." This rejects the claim that the right to forgo
to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which grants representation of separate counsel at the appellate level
criminal defendants the right to refuse counsel for trial was granted by due process and the Fourteenth Amend-
purposes. ment. The court also rejected the notion that court ap-
pointed lawyers would be disloyal to their clients, thus
preventing a fair appellate proceeding. Further, since the
court rejects this application of the Sixth Amendment
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Martinez v. California Court of Appeals
to appellate proceedings, then that cannot be held as
a claim for the conclusion that a person has the right
References
to represent themselves upon direct appeal.[3] Thus, the [1] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/
opinion of Justice Stevens dismissed not just the Due 1999_98_7809/
process claims and the precedent claims of the Faretta [2] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/
decision, but also the potential future claims under the 1999_98_7809/argument
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. [3] [1] Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal. Fourth
Justice Scalia, in a concurrence, suggests that the de- Appellate Dist. 528 U.S. 152-154
cision in Faretta does not apply strictly to the question [4] [2] Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal. Fourth
before the court since in the case McKane v. Durston, 153 Appellate Dist. 528 U.S. 165
U.S. 684-688 (1894), the court decided that "there was no
constitutional right to an appeal.[4]"
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/in-
dex.php?title=Martinez_v._California_Court_of_Appeals&oldid=456096976"
Categories:
• 2000 in United States case law
• United States Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel case law
• United States criminal due process case law
• United States Supreme Court cases
This page was last modified on 17 October 2011 at 23:57. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view
2