Is a public defender's determination that the indigent has grounds for a collateral proceeding not subject to court review?

This brings us to the second portion of what appears to be the public defender's contention, namely, that his determination that the indigent has grounds for a collateral proceeding is likewise not subject to court review except at a hearing of the petition which the public defender may file for the indigent, in other words, that the court cannot determine the indigent's right to a hearing on the petition filed by the public defender. People v. Shipman, supra, 62 Cal.2d at page 230, 42 Cal.Rptr. 1, 397 P.2d 993, in effect, holds otherwise. It requires that before appointment of counsel may be made in a collateral proceeding and a hearing had, "substantial legal or factual issues" must be set forth, and that the court must determine the sufficiency of such showing. "Unless we make the filing of adequately detailed factual allegations stating a prima facie case a condition to appointing counsel, there would be no alternative but to require the state to appoint counsel for every prisoner who asserts that there may be some possible ground for challenging his conviction. Neither the United States Constitution nor the California Constitution compels that alternative. Accordingly, in the absence of adequate factual allegations stating a prima facie case, counsel need not be appointed either in the trial court or on appeal from a summary denial of relief in that court." (p. 232, 42 Cal.Rptr. p. 5, 397 P.2d p. 997.)