Supreme Court to Decide: When Indigents Plead Guilty, Who Should Pay for Appeal?

Ken Thomas
The Associated Press
04-27-2005
Supreme Court justices heard arguments Monday over whether a Michigan law barring the state from paying for appeals for indigent defendants who plead guilty discriminates against the poor.

Michigan is the only state with such a law. However, 17 states are backing its case, and advocates for the poor are worried those states will pass similar laws if Michigan prevails.

Before the Court was the case of Antonio Dwayne Halbert, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to two child molestation charges and received up to 30 years in prison.

Halbert, who has learning disabilities, has unsuccessfully sought a state-appointed lawyer to appeal based on his contention the length of his sentence was improperly calculated.

David Moran, a Wayne State University law professor representing Halbert, said the law has created separate systems of justice: one for the rich, another for the poor.

"It has no impact whatsoever on the wealthy, and it is aimed at the indigent," Moran said.

Justice Antonin Scalia was among several justices who questioned whether that was true, noting that the law does not stop anyone from asking for an appeal.

"A right to ask for an appeal is not a right to get an appeal," Scalia said.

The law under review was approved by Michigan voters in 1994. It bars automatic appeals for defendants who plead guilty or no contest unless they fall under a limited set of exceptions, including if a prosecutor seeks an appeal. Defendants still can ask the Michigan Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, but that request is seldom granted.

Justice John Paul Stevens said that poor defendants are placed in a difficult position if their court-appointed attorneys fail to properly handle their cases. Halbert's attorney did not object to the calculation of his prison term at the sentencing hearing.

"If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Stevens said.

The Michigan law was aimed at helping clear a backlog of more than 4,000 cases before the appeals court, one-third of which were from defendants who had pleaded guilty. Most of the defendants were seeking reduced sentences.

Bernard Restuccia, an assistant Michigan attorney general, told the justices that even with the law each judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals still writes 130 to 140 opinions a year. "Resource allocation is one of the pressing issues for the Michigan Court of Appeals," he said.

Gene Schaerr, an attorney representing 17 states that joined in a friend-of-the-court brief, said many states are looking for ways to reduce backlogs.

"It's a question of allocating scarce legal resources," Schaerr told the justices.

The same issue was argued last fall, but the Court did not address the main question, ruling 6-3 that the two attorneys who sued over the law had no standing because they didn't represent specific clients.

The 17 states supporting Michigan are: Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.

At the very least, the States should have the right to impose something similar to a certificate of appealability procedure to these cases. See Rule 25.2 (a)(2)(B). In an ideal world Douglas v. California would apply across the board, but when resources are stretched to the limit by frivolous appeals where guilt has been admitted something has to give. I am not so sure the Supremes will recognize this.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 04-27-05 at .]

I think Michigan has it right. That state is not saying there is no right to appeal. They are saying that part of the benefit of an agreed punishment (a sweet deal, in other words) is the loss of the opportunity for a free lawyer on appeal. In addition, defendant can always pursue a writ.

I, frankly, don't think that the Texas rule is all that much different. If the certification requirement is handled correctly, there would be no appointment of a lawyer. The court of appeals, upon receiving an appeal of a case that includes a certification that there is no right to appeal, should be dismissing the appeal.