## Facts

- Salvador Martinez, a paralegal/office assistant, received $6,000 from a client’s girlfriend intended for bail and was accused of converting the funds to his own use.
- California charged him with grand theft and fraudulent appropriation of another’s property.
- Martinez represented himself at trial; the jury acquitted him of theft but convicted him of embezzlement.
- After conviction, Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal and moved to represent himself on direct appeal, submitting a written waiver of counsel.
- The California Court of Appeal denied self-representation on appeal, concluding there was no constitutional right to proceed pro se on direct appeal.
- The California Supreme Court denied Martinez’s request for extraordinary relief.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a constitutional right of self-representation extends to a first appeal as of right.

## Issues

1. Whether the Constitution requires a state to permit a criminal appellant to represent himself on a first direct appeal as of right.
2. Whether the Sixth Amendment right of self-representation recognized at trial extends to appellate proceedings.
3. Whether due process or equal protection requires allowing an appellant to waive counsel and proceed pro se on direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the California courts’ denial of Martinez’s motion to represent himself on appeal.
- The Court held that there is no federal constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction.
- The Court concluded that neither Faretta’s holding nor its reasoning compels recognition of a pro se right on appeal.
- The Court distinguished trial rights under the Sixth Amendment from appellate rights, which arise (when an appeal is provided) from the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection requirements for meaningful access.
- Concurring opinions agreed with the judgment, emphasizing textual limits of the Sixth Amendment and practical concerns about appellate adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment’s guarantees are trial-focused and do not include a constitutional right to appeal or a right to self-representation on appeal.
- Faretta v. California recognizes a trial right to self-representation upon a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel; that right does not extend to a first direct appeal as of right.
- Where a state provides a first appeal as of right, due process and equal protection require meaningful access to that appeal, often through appointed counsel, but do not create a right to reject counsel and proceed pro se.
- A state may require that criminal appeals be conducted through counsel to protect the fairness, integrity, and efficiency of appellate review.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Constitution does not grant criminal defendants a right to conduct their own first direct appeal, allowing states to deny pro se status on appeal and to require representation by counsel even over the appellant’s objection.


Martinez v. Ct. of Appeal of Cal., Fourth App. Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000)