Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSelf-representationDirect appealRight to counselFarettaself-representationpro sedirect appeal

Facts

Martinez, who described himself as a self-taught paralegal, was charged in California with grand theft and fraudulent appropriation of another's property after being accused of converting $6,000 of a client's money. He represented himself at trial, where the jury acquitted him of grand theft but convicted him of embezzlement. Because the jury also found three prior convictions, he received a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law. He then sought to waive counsel and represent himself on direct appeal, but the California courts refused to allow it.

Issue

Does the Federal Constitution, through the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or the reasoning of Faretta v. California, give a criminal defendant a right to represent himself on direct appeal from a conviction? More specifically, must California recognize a constitutional right of self-representation on an initial appeal as of right?

Rule

Neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Due Process Clause requires a State to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. Faretta's holding and reasoning are confined to self-representation at trial and do not extend to appellate proceedings.

🔒

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.

After a burglary conviction in Phoenix, Daniel Ortiz filed a first appeal as of right. He asked the Arizona appellate court to discharge appointed counsel and let him prepare the briefs and argue the appeal himself because he had represented himself successfully at pretrial hearings.

If Daniel claims the Federal Constitution gives him a right to represent himself on his direct appeal, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Due Process Clause requires a State to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal. Faretta is confined to self-representation at trial, and the State may require counsel for an appellant on a first appeal as of right.