Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Walker
Citations: 56 Cal. App. 3d 225; 128 Cal. Rptr. 291; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1341Docket: Crim. 2587
Court: California Court of Appeal; February 25, 1976; California; State Appellate Court
In the case of G. Daniel Walker v. California, the Court of Appeals addressed a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Walker, who contended that his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution were violated by being denied the right to represent himself on appeal. Walker also argued that he was forced to accept incompetent and inadequate appointed counsel. The court ruled against Walker's claims, establishing two key points: 1. There is no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal. The court emphasized that an appeal is not an absolute right but rather a statutory privilege that the state can regulate. The right of appeal, while granted by California law, is not a necessary component of due process. 2. Once an appellate review is granted, it must comply with due process and equal protection principles. The court cited prior rulings which affirm that while indigents must be provided counsel for their first appeal as a right, this right does not extend to all stages of the appellate process. The ability of a prisoner to argue their own appeal is subject to judicial discretion and is not guaranteed, differing from their rights during trial phases. The court concluded that lawful incarceration limits certain rights and privileges, consistent with the goals of the penal system. Under California law, a criminal defendant lacks both a constitutional and statutory right to present their case on appeal or to be present during appellate proceedings, as established in Penal Code § 1255 and case law, including *People v. Ashley*. Counsel may be appointed for an appeal even against the defendant's wishes, and once appointed, the attorney holds exclusive control over court proceedings, provided fundamental rights are maintained. The case *Faretta v. California* reaffirms a defendant's right to self-representation in trial but does not extend this right to appeals; it specifically notes that convicted individuals do not have an absolute right to argue their own appeal. In this instance, the petitioner initially requested counsel for his appeal, which the court granted, and due to the complexity of the case, counsel would have been appointed regardless. The court found no deprivation of rights or prejudice resulting from the appointment of counsel and determined that the quality of representation on appeal did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, with concurrence from the presiding judges.