Opinion ID: 2602047
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Delay in Appointment of Appellate Counsel

Text: Defendant contends that the four and a half years it took to appoint appellate counsel to represent him violates his rights under the United States Constitution. We have previously considered and rejected identical claims. ( People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 942 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 116 P.3d 494]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 127 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749]; People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 775-776 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754]; People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 708-709 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213].) Defendant relies on federal authority in noncapital cases, but as we have explained, [n]one of those decisions address the unique demands of appellate representation in capital cases. ( People v. Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 709.) Additionally, defendant fails to demonstrate that the delay inherent in the procedures by which California recruits, screens, and appoints attorneys to represent capital defendants on appeal, is not necessary to ensure that competent representation is available for indigent capital appellants. ( Ibid. ) Defendant has identified no reason to reconsider our prior holdings and we decline to do so.