Title: State v. Wilson

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

1 SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE 2011 MT 277; DA 11-0062: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRENT ARTHUR WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.1 Brent Arthur Wilson (Wilson) appealed from his conviction for involvement in a fraudulent scheme to illegally take possession of real property. He was found guilty of felony Attempt (Theft), felony Deceptive Practices, felony Tampering with Public Records or Information, and misdemeanor Criminal Mischief, and sentenced to twenty- and-a-half years of incarceration with ten suspended. Prior to and throughout the jury trial Wilson invoked his constitutional right to represent himself. On appeal, Wilson argued he was not competent to waive his constitutional right to counsel and the District Court should have compelled standby counsel to represent him. He also sought a plain error review of the State’s use of journals allegedly authored by him at trial, claiming improper authentication or identification. Finally, he argued the sentence imposed was illegal and that alternatives to imprisonment were not adequately considered. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Though Wilson’s demeanor in the District Court was at times unconventional, he was found to be mentally capable by a mental health evaluator and competent to make decisions, including that of self-representation. On multiple occasions the District Court warned Wilson at length of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, appointed standby counsel, and tried to persuade Wilson to accept counsel. Wilson consistently declined and asserted his right to represent himself. Based on these facts, there was substantial credible evidence that Wilson unequivocally waived his right to counsel knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The Court also declined to conduct plain error review of the State’s use of the journals. Finally, the Court determined the sentence was legal because the length of the commitment was within the District Court’s statutory authority, the District Court took 1 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent. November 8 2011 2 the sentencing criteria of § 46-18-225(2), MCA, into account, and the District Court did not punish Wilson for refusing to confess to his crimes.