Martin v. State

At first glance, this case appears but a new pearl for the Cutbirth1 necklace of cases2 where those who can afford private attorneys explain through prison bars to those who cannot that “the simple failure [by their appointed counsel] to raise certain issues on appeal, even if they were meritorious, does not require a conclusion of ineffective assistance of counsel.”3 But the State reports Donald Martin to have a “borderline retarded intelligence” and to be too poor to afford an attorney.4 Demanding Martin make his claims in legal terms after denying him the services of an attorney must make…