In Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), the Supreme Court articulated the rationale for the requirement of effective assistance of counsel. The Court addressed a California procedure for direct appeal that required an indigent defendant to make an initial showing of merit to obtain counsel for the direct appeal. See Douglas, 372 U.S. at 354-55. The Court held that due process requires effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and that requiring an indigent defendant to make a preliminary showing of merit before he is entitled to have counsel appointed to review his case "does not comport with fair procedure." Id. at 357. The Court also held that equal protection requires the right to counsel on direct appeal because, when "the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent defendant has as of right are decided without the benefit of counsel, we think an unconstitutional line has been drawn between rich and poor." Ibid. The Court examined California's former appellate rules, which directed the Court of Appeal "upon request of an indigent for counsel, to make 'an independent investigation of the record and determine whether it would be of advantage to the defendant or helpful to the appellate court to have counsel appointed . . . ." (Id. at p. 355.) The United States Supreme Court struck down the rule because inability to afford counsel led to prejudgment of appeals while nonindigents were able to secure appellate review on the merits of their claims. The Douglas court explained: "If he can afford privately retained counsel the appellate court passes on the merits of his case only after having the full benefit of written briefs and oral argument by counsel. If he cannot the appellate court is forced to prejudge the merits before it can even determine whether counsel should be provided. At this stage in the proceedings only the barren record speaks for the indigent, and, unless the printed pages show that an injustice has been committed, he is forced to go without a champion on appeal. Any real chance he may have had of showing that his appeal has hidden merit is deprived him when the court decides on an ex parte examination of record that assistance of counsel is not required." (Douglas, supra, 372 U.S. at p. 356.)