Question

What is the rule or holding of Martinez v. Ct of Appeal of Calif?

A. Ineffective assistance of counsel in plea bargaining
B. Right to effective assistance of counsel during trial
C. Standard for plea agreement enforcement
D. Appellate court jurisdiction in plea cases

Answer 1

The case Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California dealt with a defendant's right to self-representation on appeal, rather than ineffective counsel, plea bargaining, or jurisdiction issues. It does not align with the provided options. Cases like Gideon v. Wainwright ensure state-provided legal counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases.

Step-by-step explanation:

The case Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California involved the issue of whether a defendant has the right to refuse to be represented by any counsel and instead proceed pro se, even on direct appeal. It does not directly match any of the options provided (A, B, C, or D), and thus, there is a possibility of confusion with the options given in the original question. Importantly, in the broader context of legal decisions on the right to counsel, we observe critical cases such as Gideon v. Wainwright, which acknowledged the right to legal representation, provided by the state if necessary, for defendants in criminal cases. This has been pivotal in ensuring that every defendant has access to legal counsel, regardless of their financial ability.