Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan (545 U.S. 605)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 23, 2005 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 545 U.S. 605 · 125 S. Ct. 2582
- Decided
- June 23, 2005
- Term
- October Term 2004
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1994, Michigan voters approved a proposal amending the State Constitution to provide that “an appeal by an accused who pleads guilty or nolo contendere shall be by leave of the court.” Mich. Const., Art. 1, §20. Thereafter, “several Michigan state judges began to deny appointed appellate counsel to indigents” convicted by plea. Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U. S. 125, 127 (2004). Rejecting challenges based on the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld this practice, and its codification in Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 770.3a (West 2000). People v. Harris, 470 Mich. 882, 681 N. W. 2d 653 (2004); People v. Bulger, 462 Mich. 495, 511, 614 N. W. 2d 103, 110 (2000). Petitioner Antonio Dwayne Halbert, convicted on his plea of nolo contendere, sought the appointment of counsel to assist him in applying for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The state trial court and the Court of Appeals denied Halbert’s requests for appointed counsel, and the Michigan Supreme Court declined review. Michigan Court of Appeals review of an application for leave to appeal, Halbert contends, ranks as a first-tier appellate proceeding requiring appointment of counsel under Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963). Michigan urges that appeal to the…
Excerpt of a 32,920-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.