Richard William Kleinhammer v. California

Self representation for a postconviction collateral appeal was denied applying People v. Scott as a policy which is at loggerheads with actual innocence claims case law which is unconcerned with threats to judicial resources, finality, and comity, a conflict which has not been resolved. There needs to be a review of Feretta yet to be extended to self representation on appeal pursuant to case law that has sketchy conflicting support in determining that the subsequently created court of appeals as a check on unconstitutional/unfair trials is less important after trial in view of the State court self-representation bar test or lack of test. There are due process and equal protection issues where civil appeals may file self represented while postconviction appeal considered civil in nature by the court may not file in propria persona plus the lack of consideration never given to attorney imped­ iments or the adequacy of self representation.

1. Can a postconviction appellate court create by case law a bar to self-representation without exception that does not consider nor make a discre­ tionary review of the merits of a leave to file in propri persona regarding the issue of adequacy and/or im­ pediments to finding adequate appellate counsel?

2. Did the California courts abuse their discretion and/or have a sua sponte duty to make an assessment of a leave to file in propria persona rather than merely applying a bar to self representation without discre­ tionary considering of the circumstances and under­ lying claim required by due process particularly innocence claims as an overriding case law?