Posted on 04/25/2005 7:09:08 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices heard arguments Monday over whether a Michigan law barring the state from paying for appeals for indigent defendants who plead guilty discriminates against the poor.
Michigan is the only state with such a law. However, 17 states are backing its case, and advocates for the poor are worried those states will pass similar laws if Michigan prevails.
Before the court was the case of Antonio Dwayne Halbert, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to two child molestation charges and received up to 30 years in prison.
Halbert, who has learning disabilities, has unsuccessfully sought a state-appointed lawyer to appeal based on his contention the length of his sentence was improperly calculated.
David Moran, a Wayne State University law professor representing Halbert, said the law has created separate systems of justice — one for the rich, another for the poor.
"It has no impact whatsoever on the wealthy and it is aimed at the indigent," Moran said.
Justice Antonin Scalia was among several justices who questioned whether that was true, noting that the law does not stop anyone from asking for an appeal.
"A right to ask for an appeal is not a right to get an appeal," Scalia said.
The law under review was approved by Michigan voters in 1994. It bars automatic appeals for defendants who plead guilty or no contest unless they fall under a limited set of exceptions, including if a prosecutor seeks an appeal. Defendants still can ask the Michigan Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, but that request is seldom granted.
Justice John Paul Stevens said that poor defendants are placed in a difficult position if their court-appointed attorneys fail to properly handle their cases. Halbert's attorney did not object to the calculation of his prison term at the sentencing hearing.
"If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Stevens said.
The Michigan law was aimed at helping clear a backlog of more than 4,000 cases before the appeals court, one-third of which were from defendants who had pleaded guilty. Most of the defendants were seeking reduced sentences.
Bernard Restuccia, an assistant Michigan attorney general, told the justices that even with the law each judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals still writes 130 to 140 opinions a year. "Resource allocation is one of the pressing issues for the Michigan Court of Appeals," he said.
Gene Schaerr, an attorney representing 17 states that joined in a friend-of-the-court brief, said many states are looking for ways to reduce backlogs.
"It's a question of allocating scarce legal resources," Schaerr told the justices.
The same issue was argued last fall, but the court did not address the main question, ruling 6-3 that the two attorneys who sued over the law had no standing because they didn't represent specific clients.
The 17 states supporting Michigan are: Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.
___
On the Net:
U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
If you ain't guilty, don't plead guilty because we won't pay for you to appeal your guilty plea.
Makes sense to me.
30 years seems a little light for 2 counts of child molestation, given recent events.
Of course, there's 3 or 4 Supremes on the bench right now who'd release him themselves if he just said "I'm sorry" to the victims.
All those lawyers who are making millions in malpractice cases ought to give 10% of their 'winnings' to help the poor. After all they're interested in justice, aren't they?
Let the scumbag lawyers do a little pro bono.
Excuse me? As an attorney (and not making millions on malpractice cases) I can tell you that I am not interested in justice, I am interested in making money. lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money.
I just don't seem to get the cases that make that much money (D@%& that pesky streak of honesty, just can't seem to get rid of it).
Does MI have sentencing guidelines in state court? Or did the author mean that the sentence was just too harsh?
"improperly calculated" sounds more like the now-defunk sentencing guidelines used in federal court.
A lot of lawyers do donate to the indigent defense programs along with their annual bar dues. Not to mention that those who agree to take indigent cases do so at greatly reduced fees. Not to mention pro bono work that always falls under the radar of those who think there aren't lawyers with a soul.
Based on what?
Based on what?
You're kidding right?
If your attorney knows, that if you plead guilty, you can no longer appeal, and then instructs you to plead guilty, just how smart do you think he is? This attorney just sealed your fate. Not my idea of intelligent litigation. At least if it goes to trial you have some hope in the appeals process. I'm not an attorney, but I wouldn't advise anyone to take themselves out of the appeals process, guilty or not..
Sheesh, I wouldn't think it needed an explanation.
Where in this article did it say the attorney instructed the defendant to plead guilty?
I have handled criminal cases for lots of years. There are many reasons defendants want to plead guilty even against their attorney's advice. In this case I'd suspect the guy knew he did it and figured he would get 3 years. Plus he is saved the public embarrassment at trial of his perversion.
I don't know any more about this case than what's printed in this article, even though you seem to have more info than the rest of us. I'd bet money that the lawyer explained to his client the consequence of his pleading guilty. I'm sure the lawyer also explained that his right to an appeal would be waivered.
The lawyer advises the client, explains the process, but in the end has to do what the client wants as long as it is ethical and within the law. I've worked on many cases that the client was their own worst enemy, even against the advise of their lawyer.
Obviously the guy was guilty; he pled guilty. He was not trying to appeal his conviction, just his sentence. The guy gambled he would plead guilty and get a light sentence. It backfired on him. And you have no way of knowing how his attorney advised him, do you?
Sheesh, I wouldn't think it needed an explanation.
Of course it did.
Where in this article did it say the attorney instructed the defendant to plead guilty?
Justice John Paul Stevens said that poor defendants are placed in a difficult position if their court-appointed attorneys fail to properly handle their cases. Halbert's attorney did not object to the calculation of his prison term at the sentencing hearing.
"If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Stevens said.
I believe it insinuates the defendant was inadequately defended. You're an attorney what does this mean to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.