By Laurie Asseo, Associated Press, 01/12/00
WASHINGTON - People convicted of a crime do not have a constitutional right to refuse a lawyer's help and represent themselves on appeal, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The unanimous ruling said that although criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves during a trial, that right does not extend to the appeal process.
"Our experience has taught us that (self-representation) is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.
However, states can choose to recognize such a right to represent one's self under their own state constitutions, Stevens said.
The decision upheld a California appeals court decision that refused to allow Salvador Martinez to file and argue his own appeal of his embezzlement conviction.
Martinez acted as his own lawyer during his trial in Orange County state court. The jury that convicted him also found that he had three prior convictions under California's "three strikes" law. Therefore, he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.
The Constitution's Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to represent themselves at trial. However, Stevens noted the amendment does not create a right to appeal and that the right to appeal is created by law.
"It necessarily follows that the amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to self-representation on appeal," Stevens wrote. The Constitution's due-process guarantee also does not create a right to represent one's self on appeal, he added.
During the appeal process, Stevens said, the government's interest in ensuring the integrity of the proceeding outweighs the defendant's interest in acting as his or her own lawyer.
He said the effect of today's ruling would be narrow because defendants already have no right to be present during appellate proceedings.
The case is Martinez vs. Court of Appeal of California, 98-7809.
