Facts
- Claude Franklin Moffitt, an indigent defendant, was convicted of forgery in two separate North Carolina prosecutions.
- He was represented by court-appointed counsel at trial in both cases.
- He pursued his first appeals of right to the North Carolina Court of Appeals with appointed counsel; both convictions were affirmed.
- In one case, he sought discretionary review in the North Carolina Supreme Court and was denied appointed counsel.
- In the other case, after the North Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari, he was denied appointed counsel to prepare a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- After federal district courts denied habeas relief, the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding counsel was constitutionally required for both discretionary review requests.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review that ruling.
Issues
- Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant seeking discretionary review in the state’s highest court.
- Whether the Due Process Clause requires a state to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant seeking certiorari review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause requires appointed counsel at those discretionary stages because defendants with means may retain counsel.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that neither due process nor equal protection requires a state to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant seeking discretionary review in the state’s highest court.
- The Court held that neither due process nor equal protection requires appointed counsel to prepare a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Court concluded that providing appointed counsel through trial and the first appeal of right satisfied constitutional requirements, absent a showing that indigents were denied meaningful access because of poverty.
Legal Principles
- The Constitution guarantees meaningful, non-discriminatory access to the appellate process, not appointed counsel at every discretionary level of review.
- A state is not constitutionally required to provide any appellate review; when it does, the right to appointed counsel extends at least through the first appeal of right, but not necessarily beyond it.
- Equal protection in the appellate setting forbids unreasoned distinctions but does not require absolute equality or equal advantages between indigent and non-indigent defendants.
- Denial of counsel at discretionary review does not violate due process or equal protection where the reviewing court can assess the request using the existing record and prior appellate briefing, along with any pro se submission.
Conclusion
Ross v. Moffitt held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not obligate states to appoint counsel for indigent defendants seeking discretionary review in a state’s highest court or seeking certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, so long as the state’s procedures provide meaningful access after counsel has been provided through the first appeal of right.