Facts
- William Douglas and Bennie Will Meyes, indigent defendants, were jointly tried in California state court and convicted of 13 felonies.
- They initially had a single public defender; early in the proceedings the defender sought a continuance citing lack of preparation and a conflict between the defendants.
- The trial court denied a continuance; the defendants sought removal of the public defender, appointment of new counsel, and additional time.
- The court allowed removal of the defender but denied appointment of replacement counsel, and the defendants proceeded to trial without representation.
- After conviction, the defendants took their first appeal as of right to the California District Court of Appeal and requested appointed appellate counsel due to indigency.
- Under a California procedure, the appellate court conducted an ex parte review of the record, concluded counsel would not be helpful, denied appointment, and affirmed the convictions without briefing or argument by counsel.
- The California Supreme Court denied further review.
Issues
- Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state to deny appointed counsel to an indigent defendant on a first appeal as of right based on an appellate court’s preliminary ex parte review that counsel would not be beneficial.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment affirming the convictions and remanded.
- The Court held that deciding the merits of an indigent defendant’s first appeal as of right without counsel violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court reasoned that ex parte review cannot reliably identify all arguable issues and risks missing “hidden merit” that counsel might develop.
- The Court concluded California’s procedure created unconstitutional wealth-based disparity because defendants with means receive the benefit of counsel while indigent defendants do not.
- Dissents argued that the state may screen out clearly meritless appeals without appointing counsel and disagreed with the majority’s equal protection framing.
Legal Principles
- When a state provides a first appeal as of right in a criminal case, it must provide indigent defendants the assistance of counsel for that appeal.
- A procedure that denies appellate counsel to indigent appellants based on an ex parte merits screening, while nonindigent appellants can retain counsel, constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Meaningful appellate review in a first appeal as of right requires the adversarial assistance of counsel, not solely judicial review of the record.
Conclusion
The Court held that California’s denial of appointed counsel to indigent defendants on their first appeal as of right—based on an ex parte determination that counsel would not help—violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and it vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the requirement of counsel on that appeal.