martinez
appeal
california
fourth
appellate
district
argued
november
decided
january
accused
converting
client
money
use
employed
paralegal
petitioner
martinez
charged
california
grand
theft
fraudulent
appropriation
another
property
chose
represent
trial
jury
acquitted
theft
convicted
embezzlement
filed
timely
notice
appeal
motion
represent
waiver
counsel
california
appeal
denied
motion
represent
based
prior
holding
constitutional
right
direct
appeal
faretta
california
held
criminal
defendant
constitutional
right
conduct
defense
trial
voluntarily
intelligently
elects
proceed
without
counsel
state
explained
right
counsel
appeal
stems
due
process
equal
protection
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
sixth
amendment
faretta
based
held
denial
level
violate
due
process
equal
protection
california
denied
martinez
application
writ
mandate
held
neither
faretta
holding
reasoning
requires
state
recognize
constitutional
right
direct
appeal
criminal
conviction
although
faretta
reasoning
applicable
appellate
proceedings
well
trials
significant
distinctions
first
historical
evidence
faretta
relied
identifying
right
useful
pertained
times
lawyers
scarce
often
mistrusted
readily
available
average
person
accused
crime
whereas
since
recognized
every
indigent
defendant
criminal
trial
constitutional
right
assistance
appointed
counsel
see
gideon
wainwright
moreover
unlike
right
recognized
faretta
historical
evidence
provide
support
affirmative
constitutional
right
appellate
second
faretta
reliance
sixth
amendment
structure
interpreted
light
english
colonial
background
relevant
amendment
deals
strictly
trial
rights
include
right
appeal
see
abney
necessarily
follows
amendment
provide
basis
finding
right
appellate
faretta
inquiries
historical
english
practices
provide
basis
extending
case
appellate
process
appeal
criminal
conviction
england
third
although
faretta
conclusion
knowing
intelligent
waiver
right
trial
counsel
must
honored
respect
individual
autonomy
also
applicable
appellate
context
recognized
right
absolute
see
given
conclusion
sixth
amendment
apply
appellate
proceedings
individual
right
appeal
based
autonomy
principles
must
grounded
due
process
clause
practices
prevailing
nation
today
entirely
unpersuaded
risk
disloyalty
attorney
suspicion
disloyalty
underlies
constitutional
right
trial
see
sufficient
concern
conclude
right
necessary
component
fair
appellate
proceeding
clearly
within
discretion
conclude
government
interests
ensuring
integrity
efficiency
appellate
process
outweigh
invasion
appellant
interest
although
narrow
holding
preclude
recognizing
constitutional
right
appellate
constitutions
pp
affirmed
stevens
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
souter
thomas
ginsburg
breyer
joined
kennedy
breyer
filed
concurring
opinions
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
salvador
martinez
petitioner
appeal
california
fourth
appellate
district
writ
certiorari
california
january
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
sixth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
guarantee
person
brought
trial
state
federal
must
afforded
right
assistance
counsel
validly
convicted
punished
imprisonment
faretta
california
decided
defendant
also
constitutional
right
proceed
without
counsel
voluntarily
intelligently
elects
although
statement
arguably
embraces
entire
judicial
proceeding
also
phrased
question
whether
state
may
constitutionally
hale
person
criminal
courts
force
lawyer
upon
even
insists
wants
conduct
defense
ibid
conclusion
faretta
extended
defendant
constitutional
right
conduct
defense
accordingly
specific
holding
confined
right
defend
oneself
trial
address
different
question
whether
reasoning
support
holding
also
applies
defendant
becomes
appellant
assumes
burden
persuading
reviewing
conviction
reversed
concluded
martinez
describes
paralegal
years
experience
different
law
firms
see
app
employed
office
assistant
firm
santa
ana
california
martinez
accused
converting
client
money
use
charged
information
grand
theft
fraudulent
appropriation
property
another
chose
represent
trial
jury
claimed
attorney
earth
believe
saw
past
criminal
record
jury
acquitted
count
grand
theft
convicted
count
embezzlement
jury
also
found
three
prior
convictions
accordingly
california
three
strikes
law
imposed
mandatory
sentence
prison
see
cal
penal
code
west
martinez
filed
timely
notice
appeal
well
motion
represent
waiver
counsel
california
appeal
denied
motion
california
denied
application
writ
mandate
california
issue
opinion
case
appeal
previously
explained
constitutional
right
initial
appeal
right
right
counsel
appeal
stems
due
process
equal
protection
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
sixth
amendment
foundation
faretta
based
denial
level
violate
due
process
equal
protection
guarantees
people
scott
cal
app
cal
rptr
granted
certiorari
martinez
raised
question
state
federal
courts
expressed
conflicting
views
affirm
ii
faretta
majority
based
conclusion
three
arguments
first
examined
historical
evidence
identifying
right
protected
federal
state
law
since
beginning
nation
second
interpreted
structure
sixth
amendment
light
english
colonial
background
third
concluded
even
though
undeniable
criminal
prosecutions
defendants
better
defend
counsel
guidance
unskilled
efforts
knowing
intelligent
waiver
must
honored
respect
individual
lifeblood
law
illinois
allen
faretta
reasoning
applicable
appellate
proceedings
well
trials
however
significant
distinctions
historical
evidence
relied
upon
faretta
identifying
right
always
useful
pertained
times
lawyers
scarce
often
mistrusted
readily
available
average
person
accused
crime
one
obtain
lawyer
feasible
alternative
asserting
defense
thus
government
recognition
indigent
defendant
right
represent
comparable
bestowing
upon
homeless
beggar
right
take
shelter
sewers
paris
surprisingly
early
precedent
demonstrates
right
always
used
defendant
advantage
shield
rather
often
employed
prosecution
sword
principal
case
cited
faretta
illustrative
adams
ex
rel
mccann
relied
existence
right
basis
finding
unrepresented
defendant
waived
right
trial
jury
since
recognized
however
indigent
defendant
criminal
trial
constitutional
right
assistance
appointed
counsel
see
gideon
wainwright
thus
individual
decision
represent
longer
compelled
necessity
choosing
incompetent
nonexistent
representation
rather
likely
reflects
genuine
desire
conduct
cause
words
faretta
omitted
therefore
faretta
correct
concluding
abundant
support
proposition
right
recognized
centuries
original
reasons
protecting
right
force
availability
competent
counsel
every
indigent
defendant
displaced
need
although
always
desire
scant
historical
evidence
pertaining
issue
appeal
even
less
helpful
faretta
relied
upon
description
right
judiciary
act
stat
parties
may
plead
manage
causes
personally
assistance
counsel
arguable
language
encompasses
appeals
well
trials
assuming
apply
appellate
proceedings
however
statutory
right
expressly
limited
phrase
rules
said
courts
stat
appellate
courts
maintained
discretion
allow
litigants
manage
causes
litigants
done
effectively
opportunity
however
consistently
subject
rules
aware
historical
consensus
establishing
right
appeal
might
nonetheless
paraphrase
faretta
assert
state
colony
ever
forced
counsel
upon
convicted
appellant
spokesman
ever
suggested
practice
tolerable
advisable
negative
historical
evidence
meaningful
faretta
fact
dog
barked
arguably
demonstrated
early
lawmakers
intended
preserve
right
trial
ibid
historical
silence
however
probative
force
appellate
context
simply
right
appeal
fact
right
appeal
relatively
recent
origin
appeals
right
federal
courts
nonexistent
first
century
nation
appellate
review
sort
rarely
allowed
abney
also
generally
recognize
appeal
right
washington
became
first
constitutionalize
right
explicitly
similarly
right
appeal
criminal
cases
common
law
appellate
review
sort
limited
rarely
used
thus
unlike
inquiry
faretta
historical
evidence
provide
support
affirmative
constitutional
right
appellate
faretta
majority
reliance
structure
sixth
amendment
also
relevant
sixth
amendment
identifies
basic
rights
accused
shall
enjoy
criminal
prosecutions
presented
strictly
rights
available
preparation
trial
trial
sixth
amendment
include
right
appeal
recognized
right
appeal
presently
know
criminal
cases
purely
creature
statute
abney
necessarily
follows
amendment
provide
basis
finding
right
appeal
faretta
majority
nontextual
interpretation
sixth
amendment
also
included
examination
british
criminal
jurisprudence
reference
opprobrious
trial
practices
star
chamber
inquiries
historical
english
practices
however
provide
basis
extending
faretta
appellate
process
appeal
criminal
conviction
england
see
griffin
illinois
frankfurter
concurring
judgment
edw
vii
ch
indeed
none
many
cases
safeguarding
rights
indigent
appellant
placed
reliance
either
sixth
amendment
faretta
see
douglas
california
griffin
finally
faretta
majority
found
right
trial
grounded
part
respect
individual
autonomy
see
consideration
course
also
applicable
appellant
seeking
manage
case
explained
faretta
trial
level
force
lawyer
defendant
lead
believe
law
contrives
ibid
appellate
review
surely
similar
risk
appellant
skeptical
whether
lawyer
employed
government
prosecuting
serve
cause
undivided
loyalty
equally
true
appeal
related
observation
appellant
personally
bear
consequences
appeal
see
ibid
light
conclusion
sixth
amendment
apply
appellate
proceedings
individual
right
appeal
based
autonomy
principles
must
grounded
due
process
clause
practices
prevail
nation
today
however
entirely
unpersuaded
risk
either
disloyalty
suspicion
disloyalty
sufficient
concern
conclude
constitutional
right
necessary
component
fair
appellate
proceeding
doubt
instances
disloyal
representation
rare
trials
appeals
without
question
cases
counsel
performance
ineffective
even
cases
however
reasonable
assume
counsel
performance
effective
unskilled
appellant
provided
one
including
martinez
faretta
majority
attempts
argue
rule
pro
se
representation
wise
desirable
efficient
although
found
faretta
right
defend
oneself
trial
fundamental
nature
clear
representation
counsel
standard
exception
see
patterson
illinois
noting
strong
presumption
waiver
right
counsel
experience
taught
us
pro
se
defense
usually
bad
defense
particularly
compared
defense
provided
experienced
criminal
defense
attorney
faretta
opinion
recognized
right
absolute
defendant
must
voluntarily
elect
conduct
defense
quoting
johnson
zerbst
courts
require
timely
manner
must
first
made
aware
dangers
disadvantages
trial
judge
may
also
terminate
appoint
standby
counsel
even
defendant
objection
necessary
held
standby
counsel
may
participate
trial
proceedings
even
without
express
consent
defendant
long
participation
seriously
undermin
appearance
jury
defendant
representing
mckaskle
wiggins
additionally
trial
judge
duty
provide
personal
instruction
courtroom
procedure
perform
legal
chores
defendant
counsel
normally
carry
even
trial
level
therefore
government
interest
ensuring
integrity
efficiency
trial
times
outweighs
defendant
interest
acting
lawyer
appellate
context
balance
two
competing
interests
surely
tips
favor
state
status
accused
defendant
retains
presumption
innocence
throughout
trial
process
changes
dramatically
jury
returns
guilty
verdict
recognized
shifting
focus
noted
significant
differences
trial
appellate
stages
criminal
proceeding
purpose
trial
stage
state
point
view
convert
criminal
defendant
person
presumed
innocent
one
found
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
contrast
ordinarily
defendant
rather
state
initiates
appellate
process
seeking
fend
efforts
state
prosecutor
rather
overturn
finding
guilt
made
judge
jury
ross
moffitt
words
faretta
majority
appellate
proceedings
simply
case
hal
ing
person
criminal
courts
requirement
representation
trained
counsel
implies
disrespect
individual
inasmuch
tends
benefit
appellant
well
courts
course
may
still
exercise
discretion
allow
lay
person
proceed
pro
se
already
leave
appellate
courts
discretion
keeping
best
interests
prisoner
government
mind
decision
whether
allow
pro
se
appellant
participate
even
present
oral
argument
price
johnston
considering
change
position
defendant
appellant
autonomy
interests
survive
felony
conviction
less
compelling
motivating
decision
faretta
yet
overriding
state
interest
fair
efficient
administration
justice
remains
strong
trial
level
thus
clearly
within
discretion
conclude
government
interests
outweigh
invasion
appellant
interest
iii
foregoing
reasons
conclude
neither
holding
reasoning
faretta
requires
california
recognize
constitutional
right
direct
appeal
criminal
conviction
holding
course
narrow
preclude
recognizing
right
constitutions
impact
law
minimal
lay
appellant
rights
participate
appellate
proceedings
long
limited
conclusions
right
present
appellate
proceedings
schwab
berggren
present
oral
argument
price
meanwhile
rules
governing
appeals
california
presumably
well
seem
protect
ability
indigent
litigants
make
pro
se
filings
see
people
wende
cal
see
also
anders
california
requiring
martinez
circumstances
accept
attorney
california
courts
deprived
constitutional
right
accordingly
judgment
california
affirmed
ordered
salvador
martinez
petitioner
appeal
california
fourth
appellate
district
writ
certiorari
california
january
justice
kennedy
concurring
resolve
case
unnecessary
cast
doubt
upon
rationale
faretta
california
faretta
accepted
quite
sound
yet
follow
convicted
person
similar
right
appeal
different
considerations
apply
appellate
system
explains
observations
join
opinion
salvador
martinez
petitioner
appeal
california
fourth
appellate
district
writ
certiorari
california
january
justice
breyer
concurring
agree
join
opinion
justice
scalia
writes
separately
underscore
continuing
constitutional
validity
faretta
california
note
judges
closer
firing
line
sometimes
expressed
dismay
practical
consequences
holding
see
farhad
concurring
opinion
right
frequently
though
always
conflicts
squarely
inherently
right
fair
trial
found
empirical
research
however
might
help
determine
whether
general
right
represent
oneself
furthers
inhibits
constitution
basic
guarantee
fairness
without
strong
factual
basis
believing
faretta
holding
proved
counterproductive
practice
position
reconsider
constitutional
assumptions
underlie
case
salvador
martinez
petitioner
appeal
california
fourth
appellate
district
writ
certiorari
california
january
justice
scalia
concurring
judgment
share
apparent
skepticism
today
opinion
concerning
judgment
often
curiously
described
merely
judgment
majority
faretta
california
doubt
framers
constitution
suspicious
enough
governmental
power
including
judicial
power
insisted
upon
citizen
right
judged
independent
jury
private
citizens
found
acceptable
compulsory
assignment
counsel
government
plead
criminal
defendant
case
might
rested
decision
upon
due
process
clause
rather
sixth
amendment
believe
correct
asserting
right
may
often
even
usually
work
defendant
disadvantage
remarkable
basis
withdrawing
right
fact
proceeding
without
counsel
custodial
interrogation
confessing
crime
usually
works
defendant
disadvantage
system
laws
generally
presumes
criminal
defendant
fully
informed
knows
best
interests
need
dictated
state
approach
unworthy
free
people
justice
frankfurter
eloquently
put
adams
ex
rel
mccann
require
acceptance
counsel
imprison
man
privileges
call
constitution
event
faretta
relevant
question
us
limited
extent
must
decide
whether
holding
applies
appeal
seems
question
readily
answered
fact
constitutional
right
appeal
see
mckane
durston
since
state
far
federal
constitution
concerned
subject
determinations
review
whatever
fortiori
subject
review
consists
nonadversarial
reexamination
convictions
panel
government
experts
adversarial
review
counsel
appointed
state
even
less
questionable
reasons
concur
judgment
footnotes
see
powell
alabama
johnson
zerbst
gideon
wainwright
argersinger
hamlin
compare
myers
collins
finding
right
extends
appeals
campbell
blodgett
chamberlain
ericksen
commonwealth
rogers
state
van
pelt
ark
webb
state
ind
webb
state
tex
crim
app
gillis
finding
right
appeal
lumbert
finley
hill
state
state
gillespie
crim
app
colonists
brought
appreciation
virtues
traditional
distrust
lawyers
colonies
first
settled
lawyer
synonymous
cringing
crown
arbitrary
justices
king
bent
conviction
opposed
king
prerogatives
twisting
law
secure
convictions
prejudice
gained
strength
colonies
distrust
lawyers
became
institution
several
colonies
prohibited
pleading
hire
century
prejudice
persisted
century
lower
classes
came
identify
lawyers
upper
class
years
revolution
confederation
saw
upsurge
antilawyer
sentiment
sudden
revival
war
revolution
old
dislike
distrust
lawyers
class
faretta
footnotes
omitted
similarly
state
cases
cited
faretta
see
defendant
right
represent
often
predicate
upholding
waiver
important
right
see
mackreth
wilson
app
failure
defendant
request
counsel
equaled
election
proceed
pro
se
lockard
state
idaho
relied
defendant
right
uphold
uncounseled
guilty
plea
despite
claims
coerced
people
nelson
defendant
pro
se
status
predicate
upholding
waiver
indictment
jury
trial
also
uphold
guilty
plea
allen
commonwealth
mass
life
sentence
upheld
despite
fact
indigent
defendant
unable
procure
counsel
westberry
state
guilty
plea
upheld
defendant
failed
claim
indigency
request
counsel
state
hollman
right
defendant
represent
used
basis
finding
right
appointed
counsel
see
state
thomlinson
vacating
conviction
based
failure
allow
defendant
represent
state
penderville
utah
cappetta
state
app
rev
state
capetta
finding
voluntary
intelligent
waiver
right
proceed
pro
se
see
sec
sloan
pro
se
respondent
argued
briefed
prevailed
appeals
second
circuit
conan
doyle
silver
blaze
complete
sherlock
holmes
see
lobsenz
constitutional
right
appeal
guarding
unacceptable
risks
erroneous
conviction
puget
sound
rev
although
washington
first
state
constitutionalize
appeal
right
almost
historically
form
discretionary
appellate
review
see
generally
orfield
criminal
appeals
america
stephen
history
criminal
law
england
critics
argue
right
proceed
pro
se
trial
certain
cases
akin
allowing
defendant
waive
right
fair
trial
see
farhad
reinhardt
concurring
specially
cert
pending
decker
sixth
amendment
right
shoot
oneself
foot
assessment
guarantee
twenty
years
faretta
seton
hall
const
see
collecting
cases