In the 1986 case Pennsylvania v. Finley, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants do not have a constitutional right to counsel during discretionary appeals following their conviction and sentencing. The case involved an appeal by John Finley who was convicted of robbery in Pennsylvania state court and sought post-conviction relief under a state statute which provided for appointment of counsel if requested by an indigent defendant. However, his appointed attorney concluded there were no grounds for appeal and asked to withdraw from representation, which was granted by the trial court without hearing or notice to Finley. On review, the Supreme Court held that since states are not required under due process or equal protection principles to provide appellate systems at all, they can set up such systems as they choose including denying free legal assistance beyond first appeals of right.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania v. Finley, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to deny indigent defendants post-conviction counsel was a departure from established precedent guaranteeing legal representation in all critical stages of criminal proceedings. They contended that this ruling created an unjust system where only those who could afford private attorneys would have access to full appellate review. The dissenters also expressed concern about leaving unrepresented individuals to navigate complex legal issues on their own, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or sentences due to lack of understanding or procedural errors. They believed that providing counsel at post-conviction stage is essential for ensuring equal justice under law and maintaining public confidence in the fairness of our judicial system.