THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DOUGLAS V. CALIFORNIA (1963) HELD THAT INDIGENTS APPEALING FROM STATE COURT CONVICTIONS WERE ENTITLED TO THE APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THE COURT, HOWEVER, LIMITED THE DOUGLAS HOLDING IN THE CASE OF ROSS V. MOFFITT (1974). THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT UNDER MOFFITT ENTITLE THE APPELLANT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL ONLY ON THE FIRST, DIRECT APPEAL OF RIGHT. THE INDIANA STATUTES, DRAFTED IN 1971, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION TO APPELLANTS SEEKING POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES. THE INDIANA 'SUPRACONSTITUTIONAL' LAW REQUIRES PUBLIC DEFENDERS TO REPRESENT ANY INDIGENT APPELLANT EVEN IN DISCRETIONARY APPEALS. AN EXTENSION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO APPEALS TO THE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT WOULD TRANSFORM INDIANA'S SYSTEM OF BENEFITS TO A SYSTEM OF ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WOULD FOLLOW THE TREND OF CASE LAW WHICH FINDS THE RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL TO BE A LOGICAL COROLLARY TO THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY COUNSEL. COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS REPRESENT INDIGENTS TAKING DIRECT APPEALS IN INDIANA. NO UNIFORM METHOD OF PROVIDING APPELLATE REPRESENTATION IS PROVIDED BY LEGISLATION, BUT FOUR UNRELATED STATUTES GOVERN THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL LEVEL. THE APPLICATION OF THESE STATUTES IS DEPENDENT UPON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TRIAL OCCURS, BUT THE APPOINTED TRIAL COUNSEL FREQUENTLY IS APPOINTED FOR THE APPEAL BY STATE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE. A COMPARISON OF THE REVERSAL RATES FOR THE COUNTIES WHICH USE A PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM OF COUNSEL AND THOSE WHICH RELY ON DISCRETIONARY APPOINTMENT INDICATES THAT A DEFENDANT'S POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL APPEAL IS ENHANCED BY THE USE OF EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THE REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT APPELLANTS BY THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS CONFINED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO RELIEF FUNDED BY THE STATE AND GOVERNED UNDER THE STATE'S POSTCONVICTION REMEDY RULES. THESE RULES ALLOW APPEALS TO BE TAKEN BOTH FOR ERRORS APPEARING ON THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT AND FOR A REVIEW OF NEW FACTS. QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS INDICATE THAT THE WORKLOAD IS HEAVY AND THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR INCREASED STAFF. A COST ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE REPRESENTATION PROCEDURES STRONGLY RECOMMENDS EXPANSION OF THE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM AND THE INSTITUTION OF AN APPELLATE DEFENDER SYSTEM IN THE STATE. (TWK)