IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0120 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JACOB JON IDLAND, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

HLED 

JAN 1 7 2023 

Bowen G :nw000 

Clc, . me Court Slate of Montana 

ORDER 

Jacob Jon Idland appears as a self-represented litigant and moves this Court to 

remove counsel in his appeal so he rnay represent himself. Idland presently has counsel 

from the Appellate Defender Division (ADD). Idland appeals a January 19, 2022 

Sentencing Order. issued in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County. 

Idland states that he knowingly waives the right to counsel, pursuant to § 46-8-102, 

MCA. He further states that he "wishes to be represented by himself in which to prepare 

and file [an] appeal" with this Court. He points out that his counsel has filed six extensions 

of time to file an opening brief. Idland adds that he contacted the Administrator of the 

Appellate Defender Division about this motion, and he states that there is no objection. 

This Court observes that Idland did not serve a copy of the motion upon counsel 

with the Appellate Defender Division. 

"There is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as of 

right." Martinez v. Ct. of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152, 155, 120 S. Ct. 684, 687 (2000) (internal 

quotation omitted). The United States Supreme Court recognized that "the right of appeal, 

as we presently know it in criminal cases, is purely a creature of statute. It necessarily 

follows that the [Sixth] Amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to 

self-representation on appeal." Martinez, 528 U.S. at 160, 120 S. Ct. at 690 (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court pointed out the significant differences 

between the trial and appellate stages of a criminal proceeding. "By contrast, it is ordinarily 

01/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0120
the defendant, rather than the State, who initiates the appellate process, seeking not to fend 

off the efforts of the State's prosecutor but rather to overturn a finding of guilt made by a 

judge or a jury below." Martinez, 528 U.S. at 162-63, 120 S. Ct. at 691 (internal citation 

and quotation marks omitted). 

The only basis upon which Idland bases his motion to remove appellate counsel is 

that his court-appointed counsel from the Appellate Defender Division has filed six 

extensions and is having problems finding contract attorneys to address its backlog. 

Although Idland "requests to knowingly waive the right to [c]ounsel and . . . representO 

himself," there is no indication that he is "aware of the dangers and disadvantages of 

self-representation." City of Missoula v. Fogarty, 2013 MT 254, ¶ 12, 371 Mont. 513, 309 

P.3d 10 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Idland may not immediately appreciate 

the benefit of the appointment of counsel for his direct appeal, but he is entitled to counsel's 

representation. Section 46-8-104(1)(d), MCA. 

This Court cautions Idland to refrain from filing pleadings on his own behalf while 

represented by counsel in an appeal. M. R. App. P. 10(1)(c). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Idland's Motion for Waiver of Counsel is DENIED and 

DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Jacob Jon Idland personally. 

DATED this / /71kday ofJanuary, 2023. 

Chief Justice 
Justices 

3