United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990); Atlantic Richfield Co.
v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990); California
v. American Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990); F.T.C. v.
Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411 (1990);
California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989).
APPEALSAPPEALSAPPEALSAPPEALSAPPEALS
(See also, COURTS, DOUBLE JEOPARDY)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Right to Appeal
There is no federal constitutional right to state
appellate review of a state criminal conviction. State v.
Bianco, 103 N.J. 383, 391 (1986); Jones v. Barnes, 463
U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 3312, 77 L.Ed.2d 987
(1983); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656, 97
S.Ct. 2034, 2038, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977); Estelle v.
Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 536, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 43 L.Ed.2d
377 (1975); In re Livolsi, 85 N.J. 576, 592 (1981); State
v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85, 108 (1976). Since appellate
review of a final judgment by a state court in a criminal
matter is not a necessary element of due process of law, a
state may grant such review upon such terms as it deems
proper. Application of Boyer, 226 F.Supp. 888, 891
(D.N.J. 1963), aff’d 328 F.2d 620 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,
377 U.S. 937 (1964). A criminal defendant, however,
has the right to appeal as guaranteed by the N.J.
Const.1947, Art. 6, § 5, ¶ 2. A state that confers a right
to appeal, though not required to confer such a right,
must establish appellate procedures that satisfy the due
process clause. Bianco, supra; Evitts v. Luce, 469 U.S. 387,
105 S.Ct. 830, 838-39, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 833 (1985).In Bianco the defendant complained that he was
denied due process because he received an abbreviated
form of appeal when it was assigned to the Excessive
Sentence Oral Argument program, providing for
argument without briefing when the sole issue was a
claim of excessive sentence. The Court rejected the
argument that a written brief was essential to effectively
challenge the sentence. Furthermore, lack of a formal
opinion did not indicate that the Appellate Division gave
less than adequate consideration to the matter. The
Court also rejected Bianco’s claim that he was denied
equal protection insofar as a subclass of indigent
defendants were being denied full review, since the
classification of cases included in the program was
rationally related to a legitimate state interest in clearing
the inordinate delays in appellate review.