Title: State v. Northington

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

667 S.W.2d 57 (1984) STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Carl NORTHINGTON, Appellant. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville. March 19, 1984. *58 William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Kymberly Lynn Anne Hattaway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee. Roy N. Wilson, Brown & Wilson, Dickson, for appellant. FONES, Chief Justice. We granted defendant's Rule 11 application for permission to appeal to further review the issue of whether defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and whether in making such a determination it is permissible to consider the quality of a defendant's pro se trial performance. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial judge's investigation of the factors bearing upon a knowing and intelligent waiver were insufficient, and we agree. But, the intermediate Court, giving consideration to the performance of defendant at trial, concluded that "most competent counsel could have fared no better" and affirmed his conviction. We hold that a defendant's pro se trial performance is not relevant on the issue of whether there was a valid waiver prior to trial and reverse. *59 Defendant, Carl Northington, as an indigent had counsel appointed to represent him upon a two count indictment. Defendant was charged with robbery and assault with intent to commit murder. The attorney appointed for defendant was the Honorable Ronald W. Kilgore. On June 24, 1982, a pre-trial motion was made by appointed counsel to withdraw from further representation of defendant. This motion was supported by a handwritten affidavit signed by defendant which stated in part that after having his rights explained to him by counsel, A hearing was held on the motion to withdraw during which the following colloquy transpired: THE COURT: How old are you, Mr. Northington? THE DEFENDANT: Twenty-six (26). THE COURT: Twenty-six (26) years old? How far in school did you go? THE DEFENDANT: Through I went through the Fifth (5th). THE COURT: Through the Fifth (5th) Grade? Mr. Northington, you certainly may exercise your Constitutional right to represent yourself if you want to. At the same time, the Court would advise you that I think it's unwise. In the conduct of the trial, I think you need the assistance of counsel. But it's your decision to make and we'll abide by your wishes. Do you want to represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kilgore will be relieved, and Mr. Northington will be allowed to represent himself. The defendant represented himself pro se in the criminal trial, and was convicted on both charges. Counsel was appointed for defendant to pursue an appeal. The right to assistance of counsel in the preparation and presentation of a defense to a criminal charge is grounded in both the Tennessee and United States Constitutions. Article I, Section 9, Constitution of Tennessee; Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is settled law that there exists the alternative right the right to self representation which also has its foundation based on the Sixth Amendment. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975). The constitutional right to represent oneself can be asserted, but only after a defendant both knowingly and intelligently waives the valuable right to assistance of counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938); State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365 (Tenn. 1976). In Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, it was held that the constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel "imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused." 304 U.S. at 465, 58 S. Ct. at 1023. The United States Supreme Court in Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S. Ct. 316, 68 S. Ct. 316, 92 L. Ed. 309 (1948), laid down the proper guidelines to be observed by trial judges, in light of the strong presumption against waiver of the constitutional right to counsel, before a waiver should be found. The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 44 provide in relevant part: The Court of Criminal Appeals after examining the transcript of the hearing on the motion to withdraw, found that the *61 trial judge "wholly failed" to properly investigate the matter to be assured the defendant understood the consequences of self-representation in light of the Von Molke factors. We agree. The trial court failed to diligently examine the defendant's background and experience, failed to notify defendant as to the possible extent of any penitentiary sentence, and failed to elaborate fully to defendant why he thought it "unwise" to waive counsel. As stated in Von Molke The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, based on Cogdell v. State, 193 Tenn. 261, 246 S.W.2d 5 (1951), held: Finding defendant to have done a "commendable job" at representing himself, as the facts were so heavily against him that even the "most competent counsel could have fared no better," the court found a voluntary and knowing waiver of his right to counsel. The position of the State in its brief to this Court is that defendant's pro se performance can be considered "inasmuch as the appellant's [defendant's] trial performance reflects upon his ability to waive his right to counsel."[1] In Cogdell, supra, defendant "stubbornly" refused the services of four different attorneys the trial court appointed to represent him and represented himself pro se. The issue before the Court was whether there had been an "intelligent waiver" of the right to assistance of counsel. After quoting a passage from Johnson v. Zerbst, supra: the Court did examine the performance of defendant during his trial in determining that he had intelligently and intentionally waived his right to counsel. We think the Court in Cogdell misinterpreted the quoted language of Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, in deducing that "conduct of the accused" meant "defendants pro se trial performance." The United States Supreme Court in Faretta held that a defendant's "technical legal knowledge, as such, was not relevant to an assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself." 422 U.S. at 836, 95 S. Ct. at 2541. We therefore overrule Cogdell v. State, supra, insofar as it holds that a defendant's pro se trial performance is a proper consideration in deciding whether a defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to assistance of counsel. We think that when a defendant is apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that "he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open," Adams v. United States *62 ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 at 279, 63 S. Ct. 236 at 242, 87 L. Ed. 268 (1942), and yet chooses to proceed pro se, his performance at trial is not relevant as to whether there was a valid waiver made prior to trial. A valid waiver, if there is one, is made prior to trial or not at all. Hsu v. United States, 392 A.2d 972 (D.C.App. 1978). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the Criminal Court of Dickson County for a new trial in accordance with principles enunciated herein. COOPER, BROCK, HARBISON and DROWOTA, JJ., concur. [1] It should be noted that the State's present position on this issue is a reversal from that taken in its answer in opposition to defendant's application for permission to appeal: "Finally, the State asserts that the defendant's conduct of his defense has no bearing on the question of whether he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel."