Ross v. Moffitt

Background

A convicted, indigent defendant in North Carolina who had court-appointed lawyers at trial and on his first appeal sought legal help to ask the North Carolina Supreme Court and this Court to review his convictions. North Carolina refused to appoint counsel for those discretionary steps. A federal appeals court said the State had to provide lawyers for these discretionary state appeals and for petitions to this Court. The State asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the earlier rule requiring counsel on a first appeal as of right should be extended to these situations.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court majority examined whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointed counsel for discretionary state review or for petitions to this Court. The Court emphasized differences between trials, mandatory appeals, and discretionary review. It noted the defendant already had counsel on his first appeal and that discretionary review focuses on issues like public importance or conflicts between decisions, not correcting every error. The justices also pointed out that the right to ask this Court to review a case exists by federal statute, not by the State. For these reasons the Court held the Constitution does not require states to provide counsel at these later, discretionary stages and reversed the lower court.

Real world impact

The decision means states are not constitutionally forced to supply lawyers for indigent defendants seeking discretionary state-court review or to file petitions here. States may still choose to provide such counsel by law, but they are not required by the Federal Constitution.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that fairness and equality require counsel at these stages because indigent defendants are disadvantaged without a lawyer experienced in preparing discretionary-review petitions, and would have affirmed the lower court.