Kowalski v. Tesmer
```json {
- Status
- Decided
- Decision released
- Dec 13, 2004
Decision briefing
The case in plain English
What's this case about?
1. Does the 14th Amendment guarantee an indigent criminal defendant convicted by a guilty plea the right to an appointed appellate attorney in a discretionary first appeal? 2. Do attorneys have third-party standing on behalf of potential indigent defendants to make a constitutional challenge to a state statute prohibiting appointment of appellate counsel in discretionary first appeals following convictions by guilty pleas?
What are the basics?
```json { "summary": "Attorneys challenged a Michigan law that denied appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants who pled guilty, arguing it violated constitutional rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that the attorneys did not have the legal standing to sue on behalf of future indigent defendants.", "questionPresented": "Do attorneys have third-party standing to file a lawsuit on behalf of potential future indigent defendants to challenge a state statute that prohibits the appointment of appellate counsel for discretionary appeals following guilty pleas?" } ```
Where things stand
Timeline
Source note
How this page is sourced
This page is grounded in official case materials and tracker data.
Page data last refreshed Mar 8, 2026.
Primary materials
Documents & resources
Opinions
Recent coverage
In the news
More to watch