In the case of Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a Michigan law that denied an indigent defendant's right to counsel in first-tier discretionary appeals was constitutional. The petitioner, Antonio Dwayne Halbert, pleaded no contest to two counts of criminal sexual conduct and sought appellate counsel for his first-tier discretionary appeal but was denied under state law because he had not been convicted by trial. He argued this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection as well as his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in a criminal prosecution. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Halbert stating that it is unconstitutional for states like Michigan to deny appointed legal representation during initial appeals following pleas of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest). The majority opinion held that defendants have a constitutional right under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment for appointed legal representation at their discretion-based appeal after pleading guilty or no-contest.

In the case of Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan, the dissenting opinion argued that Michigan's rule denying appellate counsel to defendants who plead guilty or no contest does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The dissenters believed that there is a significant difference between convicted defendants who maintain their innocence and those who have admitted guilt, thus different treatment in providing appellate counsel is justified. They also pointed out that every defendant has a right to an appeal but not necessarily a right to state-funded legal representation for such appeals. Furthermore, they contended that states should be allowed flexibility in managing their criminal justice systems without federal interference unless it clearly violates constitutional rights.