Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Halbert v. Michigan

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCriminal ProcedureRight to CounselIndigent AppealsDue ProcessEqual Protectionappointed appellate counselfirst-tier review

Facts

Michigan amended its constitution so that defendants convicted by guilty or nolo contendere plea could seek review in the Michigan Court of Appeals only by application for leave to appeal, not by appeal as of right. Under Michigan law, most indigent defendants convicted by plea were not appointed appellate counsel unless specified statutory exceptions applied. Halbert pleaded nolo contendere, was sentenced, unsuccessfully sought appointed counsel from the trial court, and then filed a pro se application for leave to appeal asserting sentencing error and ineffective assistance; the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the application for lack of merit in the grounds presented. The trial court had advised Halbert about limited situations in which counsel must or may be appointed, but did not tell him directly that counsel would not otherwise be available in his case.

Issue

Do the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require Michigan to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant convicted on a guilty or nolo contendere plea who seeks first-tier review in the Michigan Court of Appeals by application for leave to appeal? And did Halbert waive any such right by entering his plea?

Rule

When a State provides a first-tier avenue of appellate review in an intermediate court that functions as an error-correcting tribunal and necessarily evaluates the merits of the defendant's claims, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking that review, even if access is obtained by application for leave to appeal rather than by formal appeal as of right. A plea in this case did not waive that right where the defendant had no recognized right to appointed appellate counsel he could elect to forgo and was not plainly told that counsel would be unavailable in his case.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, indigent defendants who plead guilty cannot take an appeal as of right. Instead, they must file an application for leave to appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals, which usually denies applications with an order stating there is 'no substantial error shown.' Nina Flores pleaded guilty in Toledo and asked for appointed counsel to prepare her leave application, but the trial court refused because review was 'discretionary.'

Is Nina most likely constitutionally entitled to appointed counsel?

Explanation. The majority held that labels do not control. If the defendant seeks the first, and likely only, direct review in an intermediate court functioning as an error-correcting tribunal, and that court's leave decision necessarily entails some evaluation of the merits, Due Process and Equal Protection require appointed counsel for an indigent defendant. That is so even though review is sought by leave application rather than formal appeal as of right.