Opinion ID: 1993367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Appellate Restrictions:

Text: It is here contended that petitioner's rights were further violated because the procedure does not permit an absolute right of appeal, nor does the appellate court in applications for appeal under the Act consider the question of weight and sufficiency of the evidence or in the case of a pauper, review a transcript of the proceedings below. There is no discrimination against indigents in the appellate provisions of the act or the established practice. Leave to appeal is granted when the application appears to have merit. Transcripts of the proceedings are not considered in such applications whether the applicant is rich or poor. When leave to appeal is granted, and only then, a transcript is required. If the applicant is without means to bear the cost, it is provided at public expense. Counsel is furnished to indigents at public expense. It is true that a State is not required by the Federal Constitution to provide appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all. See, e.g. McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687, 688, 38 L.ed 867-869, 14 S.Ct. 913. But that is not to say that a State that does grant appellate review can do so in a way that discriminates against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 100 L.ed 891, 76 S.Ct. 585 (1956). We find that those found to be defective delinquents under the Act are not discriminated against in their applications to appeal and that the limitations on appeal are within the constitutionally allowable area. We find that the limitations on the absolute right to appeal provided in the Act are not discriminative against any particular category of defective delinquents, and that special provisions concerning appeals in defective delinquent cases are within the proper prerogatives of the legislature and not offensive to the Federal Constitution under the decision in Griffin.