D is a self-taught paralegal with 25 years' experience at 12 different law firms. D was accused of converting $6,000 of a client's money to his own use. D was charged with grand theft and the fraudulent appropriation of the property of another. He chose to represent himself at trial before a jury. The jury convicted him on Count 2, embezzlement. D had three prior convictions and under California's 'three strikes' law, the court imposed a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life in prison. D filed a timely notice of appeal as well as a motion to represent himself and a waiver of counsel. The California Court of Appeal denied his motion, and the California Supreme Court denied his application for a writ of mandate. The court of appeals stated that there is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as of right. The right to counsel on appeal stems from the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, not from the Sixth Amendment. The denial of self-representation at this level does not violate due process or equal protection guarantees. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.