Opinion ID: 844288
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Delay in Appointment of Counsel

Text: Defendant contends the delay in appointing appellate counselfrom the judgment in November 1997 to May 2003violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, defendant claims a violation of his due process right to a speedy appeal and his right to equal protection. We previously have 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. 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].) In support of his argument, 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. ( Holt, 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 persuasive reason to reconsider our prior holdings, and we decline to do so.