Morris v. Superior Court, E066330

Background

Public Defender Phyllis K. Morris sought appointment of counsel for Ruth Zapata Lopez, a misdemeanor defendant whose suppression motion was granted and whose charges were dismissed; the People appealed the suppression ruling under Penal Code §1538.5.
The Appellate Division declined to appoint counsel because rule 8.851 only authorizes appointment for a defendant "convicted of a misdemeanor." Lopez had not been convicted.
Petitioner filed a writ challenging the appellate division’s refusal, arguing the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require appointment of counsel for indigent respondents on People-initiated appeals from suppression rulings.
The Court of Appeal considered whether rule 8.851 must be interpreted or remade to require appointment for preconviction respondents and whether the federal Constitution mandates appointment.
The court concluded rule 8.851 unambiguously limits appointment to convicted misdemeanor defendants and that neither the Sixth nor Fourteenth Amendment compels appointment for preconviction respondents like Lopez.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rule 8.851 requires appointment of counsel for indigent respondents not convicted of a misdemeanor	Rule 8.851 was intended (or should be interpreted) to allow appointment for any indigent misdemeanor defendant, including preconviction respondents; omission was inadvertent or unconstitutional	Rule 8.851’s plain text limits appointment to defendants convicted of a misdemeanor; no need to consult legislative history	Interpreting rule 8.851: court held the rule is unambiguous and authorizes appointment only for defendants convicted of misdemeanors
Whether the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel for respondents on appeal from suppression orders	Gideon/Anders principles require counsel whenever a person is haled into court, so appointment is required	Sixth Amendment does not apply to appellate proceedings; Martinez bars Sixth Amendment claim on appeal	Sixth Amendment claim: denied — Sixth Amendment does not mandate counsel on appeal
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment (due process/equal protection) mandates appointment for indigent preconviction respondents	Due process/equal protection require meaningful access to appellate review; denying counsel to indigent respondents creates unequal, unfair access	Precedent establishes right to appointed counsel arises where loss may result in actual imprisonment; appellate review does not create immediate risk of uncounseled imprisonment and Ross/Lassiter allow states leeway	Fourteenth Amendment claim: denied — appointment is not constitutionally required for preconviction respondents; rule 8.851 is a reasonable limitation
Whether the appellate division is forcing the Public Defender’s office to represent Lopez on appeal against Gov. Code §27706	Appellate division purportedly told counsel that the Public Defender remained counsel of record and thus compelled representation	No reliable evidence in record showing the appellate division has compelled representation or sanctioned refusal; petition seeks declaratory relief beyond mandamus scope	Court declined to adjudicate compulsion claim for lack of proof and because mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle

Key Cases Cited

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (Sixth Amendment requires appointed counsel in serious criminal trials where imprisonment may result)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for court-appointed counsel and withdrawal on appeals where counsel deems appeal frivolous)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) (Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically require appointed counsel at all appellate stages; analyze equal protection and due process)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152 (2000) (Sixth Amendment does not apply to appellate proceedings)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (due process right to counsel determined case-by-case; presumption that counsel required when risk of actual deprivation of physical liberty exists)
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) (state need not provide counsel for misdemeanor defendants who are not sentenced to imprisonment)
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (no indigent defendant may be imprisoned for a misdemeanor absent provision of counsel)
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (invalidated procedures requiring indigent appellants to make a preliminary showing of merit to receive counsel on appeal)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) (states must provide appellate transcripts to indigent defendants to protect appellate rights)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (recognition of need for counsel to protect accused’s rights)