A Right Not to Have a Lawyer?

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether there is a constitutional right not to have a lawyer when your case is appealed.

Salvador Martinez, an Orange County paralegal, was accused of pocketing a client’s money, and he chose to represent himself during his trial.

Martinez was convicted of embezzlement, and because of his prior felony convictions, he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under California’s three-strikes law.

Undeterred, he waived his right to a lawyer’s help in his state appeals and said he wanted to represent himself. He lost again. His request was denied by a state appeals court and the state Supreme Court. California law requires that a lawyer handle appeals so a case can be thoroughly reviewed.

Now a state prison inmate at Lancaster, Martinez in January sent a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that, because defendants can represent themselves at trial, they also should be able to represent themselves during their appeals.

In a one-line order Monday, the justices announced that this fall they will hear the case of Martinez vs. Court of Appeal of California, 98-7809. The court did not say, and apparently it has not been decided yet, whether the paralegal will be able to represent himself before the Supreme Court, or whether a lawyer will be chosen to present his claim.