IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0120
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand 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 tocounsel, pursuant to §46-8-102, MCA. He further states that he "wishes to be represented by himselfin which to prepare and file [an]appeal"with this Court. Hepoints out that his counsel has filedsix 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. ofAppeal, 528 U.S. 152, 155, 120 S. Ct. 684, 687 (2000) (internal quotationomitted). The United States SupremeCourt recognizedthat "theright ofappeal, as we presently know it in criminal cases, is purely a creature of statute. It necessarily follows that the [Sixth] Amendment itselfdoes 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 betweenthetrial and appellatestagesofa criminal proceeding. "Bycontrast, itisordinarily 01/17/2023

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

offthe efforts ofthe State's prosecutor but rather to overturn a finding ofguilt made by a judge or ajury 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." CityofMissoula v. Fogarty, 2013 MT 254, ¶ 12, 371 Mont. 513, 309 P.3d 10 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Idland may not immediatelyappreciate thebenefit oftheappointment ofcounsel forhisdirectappeal,but he isentitledtocounsel's representation. Section 46-8-104(1)(d), MCA. This Court cautions Idland to refrain from filing pleadings on his own behalfwhile 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 ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Jacob Jon Idland personally. DATED this / /71k

day ofJanuary, 2023.

ChiefJusticeJustices

3