Document: 372 U.S. 353 83 S.Ct. 814 9 L.Ed.2d 811 William DOUGLAS and Bennie Will Meyes, Petitioners,v.The PEOPLE OF the STATE CALIFORNIA. No. 34. Reargued Jan. 16, 1963. Decided March 18, Rehearing Denied April 29, See 373 905, 1288. Marvin M. Mitchelson Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioners. Jack E. Goertzen James, Los Angeles, respondent. Mr. Justice delivered opinion of Court. 1 Petitioners, Meyes Douglas, were jointly tried convicted in a California court on an information charging them with 13 felonies. A single public defender was appointed to represent them. At commencement trial, moved continuance, stating that case very complicated, he not as prepared felt should be because handling different defense every day, there conflict interest between petitioners requiring appointment separate counsel each This motion denied. Thereafter, dismissed defender, claiming unprepared, again renewed motions continuance. These also denied, ultimately by jury all felonies, which included robbery, assault deadly weapon, intent commit murder. Both given prison terms. appealed right District Court Appeal. That affirmed their convictions. 187 Cal.App.2d 802, 10 Cal.Rptr. 188. Douglas then petitioned further discretionary review Supreme Court, but petitions denied without hearing.1 Cal.App.2d, at 813, Cal.Rptr., 195. We granted certiorari. 368 815, 82 71, 7 23. 2 Although several questions are presented petition certiorari, we address ourselves only one The record shows requested, assistance appeal, even though it plainly appeared they indigents. In denying petitioners' requests, Appeal stated had 'gone through' come conclusion 'no good whatever could served counsel.' 812, 188, acting accordance rule criminal procedure provides state appellate courts, upon request indigent counsel, may make 'an independent investigation determine whether would advantage defendant or helpful have appointed. * After such investigation, courts appoint if court, deny judgment no value either court.' People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 154, 331 P.2d 42, 43. 3 agree, however, Traynor who said '(d)enial appeal (to indigent) seem discrimination least invidious condemned Griffin State Illinois *.' Brown, 55 64, 816, 357 1072, 1076 (concurring opinion). Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, held grant way discriminate against some defendants account poverty. There, Draper Washington, 487, 774, free transcript issue. Here issue is shall appeal. evil same: indigent. For can equal justice where kind man enjoys 'depends amount money has.' supra, p. 19, S.Ct., 591. 4 spite California's forward treatment indigents, under its present practice type person afforded hinges pay counsel. If passes merits his after having full benefit written briefs oral argument cannot forced prejudge before provided. this stage proceedings barren speaks indigent, and, unless printed pages show injustice has been committed, go champion Any real chance showing hidden merit deprived him when decides ex parte examination required. 5 here concerned problems might arise from denial preparation mandatory beyond process claims once lawyer passed court. dealing first matter rich poor alike (Cal.Penal Code §§ 1235, 1237), conviction. need now decide provide seeking hearing sustained conviction (see Cal.Const., Art. VI, § 4c; Cal.Rules Appeal, Rules 28, 29), must affirmance writ certiorari lies within Court's discretion. But appropriate observe can, consistently Fourteenth Amendment, differences so long result does due 'invidious discrimination.' Williamson Lee Optical Oklahoma, 348 483, 489, 75 461, 465, 99 563; 590. Absolute equality required; lines drawn often sustain Tigner Texas, 310 141, 60 879, 84 1124; Goesaert Cleary, 335 464, 69 198, 93 163. decided think unconstitutional line poor. 6 When run gantlet preliminary merit, comport fair procedure. federal other hand, whenever challenges certification taken faith. Johnson United States, 352 565, 77 550, 593. honor regardless what be; 'representation role advocate required.' Ellis 356 674, 675, 78 974, 975, 1060.2 California, recourse prosecute own, best how meritorious turn out be. case, 'possibly obviously bad cases,' cases require listen deciding merits, cannot. There lacking demanded Amendment man, appeals right, counsel's into record, research law, marshalling arguments behalf, while already burdened determination shift himself. unclear errors hidden, meaningless ritual, meaningful vacate remand inconsistent opinion. It ordered. 8 Judgment vacated remanded. CLARK, dissenting. I adhere my vote 891 (1956), but, always understood control here. do State's obligation furnish took pains point 'find means affording adequate effective defendants.' Id., 20, done just furnishing attorneys indigents know overwhelming percentage forma pauperis frivolous. Statistics over 96% filed variety.1 light like experience, provided filing application appointed.' 43 (1958). did examining certified neither advantageous nor It, therefore, refused through useless gesture appointing attorney. view Equal Protection Clause Due Process requires more. understand why says 'a ritual.' To attorney utter extravagance waste funds surely 'meaningless' 11 With new fetish indigency piles intolerable burden judicial machinery. Indeed, correct clean up our own house. litigants much less protection than California. Last Term received 1,200 applications none required record. Some right. Still moving papers alone. same time hundreds paid permitted records disposed course. On furnishes complete requested (1) (2) Unlike Lane 477, 768, decision these matters placed unreviewable discretion Public Defender made itself.2 12 concern rights clearly revealed supra. although undertaken prosecution nevertheless referred Angeles Bar Association. One members reviewed papers, ground disclosed. Despite old adage Mother used quote me, i.e., 'People live glass houses throw stones.' dissent. 14 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, 15 holding absolute conviction, appears rely both guarantees inherent obvious emphasis 'equal protection.' apposite, lead mischievous results. judged solely Clause, believe violates provision. 16 EQUAL PROTECTION. 17 approach problem terms is, submit, substitute resounding phrases analysis. dissented 34—36, 595, 597—599, 891,1 am constrained dissent implicit extension here—to denies seeks keep reasonable bounds instances will assigned 18 course, prohibited discriminating 'rich' 'poor' formulation laws. far thing suggest provision prevents adopting law general applicability affect more harshly rich, or, making effort redress economic imbalances eliminating entirely. 19 Every financial exaction imposes uniform basis easily satisfied well-to-do Yet take dispute constitutional power levy sales tax, charge tuition university, fix rates purchase water municipal corporation, impose standard fine violations, establish minimum bail various categories offenses. Nor contended classify crimes acts likely rich. And surely, attacking benefits needy simply those fell short goods services others themselves. 20 Laws fortunate essential reason: States affirmative duty lift handicaps flowing circumstances.'2 construe read Constitution philosophy leveling foreign many basic concepts proper relations government society. moral eliminate evils poverty, give afford. 21 Thus apparent properly regarded arising clause. policy permitting everyone retain standards unable attorneys. sole classification established believed And, providing never expected satisfy duty—if existed—to place level afford legal talent available. 22 Parenthetically, noted viewed protection, question analysis Gideon Wainwright, 335, 792, wholly unnecessary. dispose words, say deprives fails services, perhaps well, equivalent affluent obtain. 23 permits satisfactory analysis, rule, applied consistent requirements guaranteed Clause. Of considering question, lost sight responsibility all. Refusal things, fall fairness. us case. 24 DUE PROCESS. 25 bears reiteration screening ought Burns Ohio, 360 252, 79 1164, 1209, statute bars consideration docketing fees prepaid. conceded 'petitioners needed order get alleged trial errors.' U.S., 589. finds, notwithstanding assertions contrary, 'adequate review' impossible left open devise 'other defendants,' 591, establishes seemingly any protecting itself employment frivolous appeals.3 26 precisely towards part concedes 'California's indigents'—that formulated system today strikes down. except 'if reached reviewing accorded appellant, together statement reasons assigned. nothing cited us, indicate resulted injustice. Quite reason painstaking apply fairly mandate. See, e.g., discussion Vigil, 189 478, 480—482, 319, 321—322. 27 trial. 792. procedures involved stand entirely footing. First, McKane Durston, 153 684, 913, 38 867; see 590, thus narrow rules respect arbitrary unreasonable, context particular established, invalidation. Second, kinds circumscribed led conviction; encompass large variety tactical strategic resolved Third, applies appellant receives expert conscientious appraisal painting too broad brush conclude circumstances 28 What finds constitutionally offensive striking resemblance last resort leave pro se. Under proceed granted, transferred Appellate Docket, Since generally discretionary, since below, disadvantages petitioner substantial conscientiously committed great principle 'Equal Law,' deemed assist 1,000 se currently being Term. experience unrepresented. 29 distinguishes grounds relates 'the right.' Page 356. fail significance difference. Surely, exhausted review. Cf. 768. well suggested necessary administration initial determined frivolous, asking higher exercise consider claim. 30 Further, indication differs material prescribed U.S.C. 1915. As recently Term, Coppedge 369 438, 917, 21, occasion pass statute. stringent restrictions reject pauperis, nonetheless recognized prevent needless expenditure summarily disposing appeals. Indeed respects, outdone system, cases, 31 agree prohibits bar review, taking steps guard expense. done. Accordingly, affirm judgment.4 While notation indicates hearing, silent Douglas' attempts expressly behalf well. remedies us. 1257(3). 'When society deprive life, liberty property, takes most awesome steps. No for, adherence to, whole recognition paramount prompt, eminently sober procedures. methods employ enforcement aptly called measures quality civilization judged.' 449, 923, 21. office Clerk reveal 1961 1.093 (3.4%). 44 appeals, (2.3%). crucial effectiveness unquestionably 768 precluded Indiana law. fairness compared 585 necessity Compare affirming here: 'Further, (which adopted) conform written, possible points ably abundant citation pertinent authorities, doubt versed brief writing. prejudicial error appeal.' majority rely, here, blend Clauses arriving result. So rested grounds, fully accept authority Griffin. 34, 598 (dissenting writer). fee State. Penal 1241. course clear compel donate services. Petitioners contend claim, view, merit. reading leaves little dismissal efforts obtain continuance designed delay likelihood, manufacture appealable Moreover, acted claim each.

Category: 1