Citation network
Martinez Vs. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 09, 1999
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Martinez v. CourtSearch
-
of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. - 528 U.S. 152 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus MARTINEZ v. COURTSearch
-
based on its prior holding that there is no constitutional right to selfrepresentation on direct appeal under Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
indigent defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right to the assistance of appointed counsel, see Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
the Amend- 153 ment deals strictly with trial rights and does not include any right to appeal, see Abney v. UnitedSearch
-
the right to the assistance of counsel before he can be validly convicted and punished by imprisonmenU In Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae. 1 See, e. g., Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
People v. ScottSearch
-
state and federal courts have expressed conflicting views.2 526 U. S. 1064 (1999). We now affirm. 2 Compare Myers v. CollinsSearch
-
Campbell v. BlodgettSearch
-
Chamberlain v. EricksenSearch
-
must be honored out of 'that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.' Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RogersSearch
-
State v. VanSearch
-
Webb v. StateSearch
-
S. W. 2d 780, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (same), with United States v. GillisSearch
-
Lumbert v. FinleySearch
-
Hill v. StateSearch
-
State v. GillespieSearch
-
was often employed by the prosecution as a sword. The principal case cited in Faretta is illustrative. In Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
represent himself was often the predicate for upholding the waiver of an important right. See, e. g., Mackreth v. WilsonSearch
-
Lockard v. StateSearch
-
People v. NelsonSearch
-
Allen v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Westberry v. StateSearch
-
State v. HollmanSearch
-
right of defendant to represent himself used as basis for finding he had no right to appointed counsel). But see State v. ThomlinsonSearch
-
State v. PendervilleSearch
-
Cappetta v. StateSearch
-
So. 2d 913, 918 (Fla. App. 1967) (same), rev'd, State v. CappettaSearch
-
Fla. 1968) (finding voluntary and intelligent waiver of right to proceed pro se). 5 See, e. g., SEe v. SloanSearch
-
Abney v. UnitedSearch
-
to the appellate process, because there was no appeal from a criminal conviction in England until 1907. See Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
an indigent appellant has placed any reliance on either the Sixth Amendment or on Faretta. See, e. g., Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
at 817, it is clear that it is representation by counsel that is the standard, not the exception. See Patterson v. IllinoisSearch
-
certain cases is akin to allowing the defendant to waive his right to a fair trial. See, e. g., United States v. FarhadSearch
-
after Faretta, 6 Seton Hall Const. L. J. 483, 598 (1996). 162 422 U. S., at 835 (quoting Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
that the defendant is representing himself. McKaskle v. WigginsSearch
-
decision whether to allow a pro se appellant to participate in, or even to be present at, oral argument. Price v. JohnstonSearch
-
limited by the well-established conclusions that he has no right to be present during appellate proceedings, Schwab v. BerggrenSearch
-
States as well, seem to protect the ability of indigent litigants to make pro se filings. See, e. g., People v. WendeSearch
-
see also Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial