Halbert v. Michigan
With the assistance of counsel, Halbert pled "no contest" to two charges of sexual misconduct with a minor. Halbert had hoped to serve concurrent sentences, but the prosecution requested and the trial judge ordered consecutive sentences. Halbert requested an appointed attorney to help him with an appeal, but was denied. He then tried, unsuccessfully, to appeal his sentence in the Michigan courts without the assistance of counsel. A Michigan statute denies appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants who are convicted by plea. In 2003, in Kowalski v. Tesmer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had declared the Michigan statute to be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court granted cert in the case, but then dismissed it on procedural grounds without reaching the constitutional question.
Questions Presented:
1. Does Michigan's law and practice of not appointing counsel to indigent defendants convicted by guilty plea, violate Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment
right to due process?
2. Is Petitioner entitled to resentencing, where counsel failed to render effective assistance by not objecting to improper scoring under Michigan's sentencing guidelines which resulted in
Petitioner receiving a considerably longer sentence?
Decision under Review:Court of Appeals of Michigan, unpublished opinion issued April 30, 2003 (attached as appendix C to Halbert's Petition for Writ of Certiorari).
