John F. Kowalski, Judge, 26th Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, et al. v. John C. Tesmer, et al. (543 U.S. 125)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 13, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 543 U.S. 125 · 125 S. Ct. 564
- Decided
- December 13, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2004
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. This case involves a constitutional challenge to Michigan’s procedure for appointing appellate counsel for indigent defendants who plead guilty. The only challengers before us are two attorneys who seek to invoke the rights of hypothetical indigents to challenge the procedure. We hold that the attorneys lack standing and therefore do not reach the question of the procedure’s constitutionality. In 1994, Michigan amended its Constitution to provide that “an appeal by an accused who pleads guilty or nolo conten-dere shall be by leave of the court” and not as of right. Mich. Const., Art. I, §20. Following this amendment, several Michigan state judges began to deny appointed appellate counsel to indigents who pleaded guilty, and the Michigan Legislature subsequently codified this practice. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 770.3a (West 2000). Under the statute, which was scheduled to go into effect on April 1, 2000, appointment of appellate counsel for indigents who plead guilty is prohibited, with certain mandatory and permissive exceptions. Ibid. A challenge to the Michigan practice was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The named plaintiffs included the two attorney respondents and three indigents who were denied appellate counsel after pleading guilty. Pursuant to Rev. Stat. §…
Excerpt of a 15,710-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.