Opinion

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District

  • 528 U.S. 152
  • 120 S. Ct. 684
  • 145 L. Ed. 2d 597
  • 2000 U.S. LEXIS 502
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed
Jan 24, 2000
Status
Published
Author
Kennedy
On the bench
Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connok, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scaua
Cited by
765 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.3%

stating that “the [Sixth] Amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to self-representation on appeal [or a right to appeal]” and holding “that neither the holding nor the reasoning in Faretta requires California to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction[]”

How later courts described this case

  • stating that “the [Sixth] Amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to self-representation on appeal [or a right to appeal]” and holding “that neither the holding nor the reasoning in Faretta requires California to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction[]”
  • stating that “standby counsel may participate in the trial proceedings, even without the express consent of the defendant, as long as that participation does not seriously undermin[e] the appearance before the jury *301 that the defendant is representing himself’
  • holding that the appellant had no constitutional right to represent himself on appeal and no right to a “hybrid” form of representation in which he would be represented by counsel while also acting simultaneously as his own counsel
  • holding that because the Sixth Amendment does not include any right to appeal, it necessarily follows that the Sixth Amendment itself does not provide a basis for finding a right to self-representation on appeal

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Staton, 608 Pa. 404 (2010)

    Accordingly, we distinguished Martinez on that basis.
    Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaNov 9, 2010Read it

The opinion

Justice Kennedy,

concurring.

To resolve this case it is unnecessary to cast doubt upon the rationale of Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975). Faretta can be accepted as quite sound, yet it does not follow that a convicted person has a similar right of self-representation on appeal. Different considerations apply in the appellate system, and the Court explains why this is so. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.