In Re Walker

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

On January 2, 1976, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in propria persona with this court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted this court’s request to have the petition considered in conjunction with petitioner’s direct appeal from his conviction (5 Crim. No. 1897.)

[227]

Petitioner’s basic contention is that his rights and guarantees under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution were violated by his being denied the right to represent himself on appeal.

Petitioner also contends that his privileges under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution were violated and denied by forcing onto petitioner allegedly incompetent and inadequate appointed counsel on appeal while denying petitioner his right of self-representation.

Neither of these contentions has merit.

Petitioner has no constitutional right of self-representation on appeal.

“An appeal from a judgment of conviction is not a matter of absolute right, independently of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing such appeal. A review by an appellate court of the final judgment in a criminal case, however grave the offense of which the accused is convicted, was not at common law, and is not now, a necessary element of due process of law. It is wholly within the discretion of the state to allow or not to allow such a review.

“It is therefore clear that the right of appeal may be accorded by the state to the accused upon such terms as in its wisdom may be deemed proper.” (McKane v.

Durston

(1894) 153 U.S. 684, 687-688 [38 L.Ed. 867, 868, 14 S.Ct. 913, 915].)

California has made the right to appeal a statutory creature whose scope and authority is only as specifically delineated. (Superior

Wheeler Cake Corp.