I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - KA- 0 1 9 4 8 - S CT REGI NALD DES

HAW N BRADLEY
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 13/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F IND I GEN T APPEALS BY : J US T I N T AYL OR CO OK LESL I E S. LEE AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY: J OHN R. HENRY, J R. DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 31/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. F o l l o wi n g h i s i n d i c tme n tf o rt h i r d
- o f

f e n s e f e l o n y s h o p l i f

t i n g , Re g i n a l d De S h a wn B r adl ey pr ocee ded t o tr i al i n the C i r cui tC ourtof L ow ndes C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , r epr es ent ed b y c o u rt-a p p o in ted c o u n se l. A t trial, B ra d ley m o v e d to re p re se n t h im se lf. P u rsu a n t to U ni f orm C i rcui tand C ounty C ourtR ul e 8. 05, the ci r cui tcourtexami ned B r adl ey and info rm ed him of th e ri sk s o fpr o s e re p re s e n ta tio n . See U R C C C 8 .0 5 . T h e re a fte r, th e c irc u it
courtal l ow ed B r adl ey t o repr esenthi m s el f , w i th hi s appoi nt ed couns el or der ed t o actas “stan d b y co u n sel. ” F rom B rad ley’s su b seq u en t con v iction a n d sen tenc e to five y ea rs

### 2

i m pr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( “M D O C ”) , and th e d e n ial o f h is p o st-tria l m o tio n s, p ro c e e d s th e p re se n t ap p e a l. FACTS ¶2. B r adl ey w as i ndi ct ed f orthi r d- off

ense fel on y shop l i ft i ng underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 9 7 -2 3 -9 3
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 23- 93 ( R ev. 2006)
. T her eaf t er , couns el w as appoi nt ed f

orB r adl ey, and the mat t erw as s etf ortr i al on N ovember12, 2009. ¶3
. A t trial, fo ll o w ing v o ir d ir e, B rad ley info rm ed the circu it co u rt that h e “ w a n ted to
s peak on [ hi s ] ow n be hal f
. I w antt o c r os s - exami ne m ys el f
. ” B r adl ey’ s appoi nt ed couns el advi s ed the ci r cui tcourtthatB r adl ey had “ a pl ethor a of m ot i ons . . . thatar e usua l l y f i l ed pr etr i al and duri ng tr i al and post
- tr i al , al l pre par ed .
. . and I’ ve advi s ed hi m thatw hathe nee ded t o do w as t el l you thathe w ant ed t o actas hi s ow n att orney. . . . [ F] oran exa m pl e, he w ant ed to file a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t . . . . ” A fte r e x a m in in g B ra d ley a n d in fo rm in g h im
o f th e d an g ers a n d ri sk s o f pro se rep re se n tatio n , co n sis ten t w ith U n ifo rm C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rtR u le 8 .0 5 , th e c ir c u it c o u rtp e rm itte d B ra d le y to re p re s e n t h im s e lf
. See U R C C C 8. 05. B ra d le y ’s a p p o in te d c o u n s e l w a s o rd e re d to a c t a s “ s ta n d b y c o u n s e l.” ¶4. Fol l ow i ng B r adl ey’ s uns ucce s s f ul ef f ort s t o exoner at e hi m s el f , he w as convi ct ed and
se n ten c e d to fiv e y e a rs im p riso n m e n t in th e c u sto d y o f th e M D O C . A fte r th e d e n ial o f h is p o st-tria l m o tio n s, B ra d ley filed n o tice o f a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS ¶5. O n appeal , Bra dl ey as s ert s thatthe ci r cui tcourterr ed: ( 1) i n al l ow i ng hi m t o r epr es ent h im se lf; (2 ) in fa ili n g to in fo rm p ro p e rly h im o f h is rig h t to c o u n se l; an d (3 ) in fa ili n g to

### 3

o b tain a k n o w in g an d v o lu n tar y w a iv e r o f h is rig h t t o co u n se l i n v io latio n o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t to th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . See U
. S
. C o n st. am en d
. V I. ¶6. I n s upportof

hi s pos i t i on, Bra dl ey f i r stci t es Co n n v. S ta te , 17 0 S o. 2d 20 (M i ss. 1 9 6 4 ), w h ich p ro v id e d th a t: “[ w ] hi l e an acc us ed m ay w ai ve the r i ghtt o counse l , w hetherther e i s a pr oper w ai vers houl d be cl ear l y det erm i ned by the tr i al c ourt , a nd i tw oul d be f i tt i ng and appr opr i at e f

orthatdet erm i nat i on t o appea rupon the r ecor d. ” [ Johnson v. Zerbst , 3 0 4 U .S . 4 5 8 , 4 6 5 , 5 8 S . C t. 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 3 , 8 2 L . E d . 1 4 6 1 (1 9 3 7 )]. .

. . I n acc or dance w i th thes e mandat ory deci s i ons w e hol d thatther e m us tbe an i nt el l i gentand compet entw ai verof counse l by the def

endantand thatthe trial c o u rt sh o u ld s o d e ter m in e , an d fu rth e r, th a t su c h d e ter m in a tio n , as w e ll as the f act s on w hi ch i ti s bas ed, s houl d appea ron the r ecor d. Conn , 17 0 S o. 2d at23 (other ci t at i on s om i tt ed). B radl ey further ci t es Fa re tta v. Ca lifo rn ia , 422 U
. S. 806, 95 S
. C t . 2525, 45 L
. E d. 2d 562 (1975) , f orthe pr opos i t i on that“[ w ] hen an
acc us ed manages hi s ow n def ens e, he r el i nqui s hes , as a p urel y fa ctual m att er , m any of the tr adi t i onal benef

i t s as s oci at ed w i th the r i ghtt o c ouns el
. Forthi s r eas on, i n or dert o r epr es ent h im s e lf , th e a c c u s e d m u s t ‘ k n o w in g ly a n d in te llig e n tly ’ fo rg o th o s e r e lin q u is h e d b e n e fi ts .” Id
. at835. Fi nal l y, B r adl ey ci t es U ni f orm C i rc ui tand C ounty C ourtR ul e 8. 05, w hi ch
re q u ire s th a t: [ w ] hen the courtl earns thata def endantdes i r es t o actas hi s /herow n att orney, th e c o u rt sh a ll o n th e re c o rd c o n d u c t an e x a m in a tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t to det erm i ne i f

the def endantknow i ngl y and vol unt ar i l y des i r es t o actas hi s /her o w n a tto rn e y . T h e c o u rt sh a ll i n fo rm th e d e fe n d a n t th a t: 1. T he def

endanthas a r i ghtt o an att orney, and i f the def endant cannota f

f or d a n a tt orney, the s t at e w i l l appoi ntone fr ee of c h a rg e to th e d e fe n d a n t to d e fe n d o r a ss ist th e d e fe n d a n t in hi s /herdef

ens e.

### 4 2. T he def

endanthas the ri ghtt o conductthe def ens e and that the def endantm ay el ectt o conductthe def ens e and a l l ow w hat everr ol e ( s ) he des i r es t o hi s /heratt orney. 3. T he courtw i l l notr el ax ordi s r egar d the rul es of evi dence , pr ocedur e orc ourtr oom pr ot ocol f orthe def

endanta nd thatthe d e fe n d a n t w ill b e b o u n d b y a n d h a v e to c o n d u c t h im se lf/h e rse lf w i thi n the s ame rul es as an att orney, thatthes e rul es ar e not s i m pl e and thatw i thoutl egal advi ce hi s /her abi l i ty t o def end hi m s el f /her s el f w i l l be hamper ed. 4. The r i gh tt o p r oc e e d p r o s e us ua l l y i nc r e a s e s the l i ke l i hood o f a trial o u tco m e u n fa v o ra b le to th e d e fe n d a n t. 5. O therm att er s as the courtdeems appr opr i at e. A f t eri ns truct i ng the de f

e nd a nta nd as cert ai ni ng thatthe def endantunder s t ands thes e m att er s , the courtw i l l asc ert ai n i f the def endants t i l l w i s hes t o pr ocee d pr o s e o ri f

the d e f e nd a ntd e s i r e s a n a tt orne y t o a s s i s th i m/he ri n hi s /her def ens e. I f the def endantdes i r es t o pr ocee d pr o s e, the courts houl d det erm i ne i f the def endanthas exer ci s ed hi s r i ghtknow i ngl y a nd vol unt ar i l y, a nd, i f s o, m a k e th e fin d in g a m a ttero f re c o rd . T h e c o u rt m a y a p p o in t an a tto rn e y to as s i s tthe def

endanton pr ocedur e and pr ot ocol , e ven i f the def endantdoes not des i r e an a tt orney, butal l di s put es betw een the def endantand s uch att orney sh a ll b e re so lv e d in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t. U R C C C 8. 05. ¶7. B r adl ey ci t es the corr ectl aw a nd rul e. B utar evi ew of the record reveal s that the ci r cui tj udge exhi bi t ed a keen aw ar enes s of the l aw a nd rul e, a nd pr oper l y appl i ed both. The
r ecor d r ef

l ect s thatB r adl ey knew thathe had ar i ghtt o couns el , as couns el had bee n appoi nt ed t o r e pr e s enthi m . Fur therm or e, B r adl ey knew thathi s court - appoi nt ed couns el w as
re p re se n tin g h im b o th b e fo re a n d afte r B ra d ley e lec ted to m a n a g e h is o w n d e fe n se , ex p re ss ly agr eei ng t o cou nsel ’s cont i nued as s i s t ance , by s t at i ng, “I don’ tm i nd hi m j us tbei ng ther e, b eing a stan d b y co u n sel .
. . . ” F inally, th e tri al tran script va li d ates the c irc u itco u rt ’s compl i ance w i th the l aw and rul e, as not ed: B Y T H E C O U R T : . . . N ow , do you w antt o re pr es entyours el f ? I s thatw hat y o u ’re tellin g m e ? A n d h a v e M r. G o o d w in a s s tan d b y c o u n se l?

### See URCCC 8.05( 1) & ( 2). 1 

### See URCCC 8.05(4). 2 

### 5 . . . B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : I c a n – I w ill –y e a h , I p re fe r to . I th in k I’ll h e lp m y s e lf b e tte r . . . .[ ]

1

. . . B Y T H E C O U R T : . . . N ow , l etme t el l you thi s , j us ts o you’ l l know : I ’ ve bee n i nvol ved i n a l otof

tr i al s i n m y l i f

et i m e. I w as an assi s t antdi s tr i ctatt orney, and si nce then I ’ ve bee n a j udge. I have ne vers een a nybody r epr es ent themsel ves and w i n. B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : T hatdon ’tm ake no di f f er ence . I ’ m notw orr i ed a b o u t th a t.[ ]

2

. . . B Y T H E C O U R T : L e t m e a sk y o u a fe w q u e stio n s. H o w fa r d idy o u g o in sc h o o l?

. . . B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : W e ll, I w e n t t o the n in th [gr a d e ], b u t I w a s g o in g to the t enth [ gr ade]
. I dr opped out– I pass ed the ni nth and w entt o the t enth, but I dr opped outi n the t enth.
B Y T H E C O U R T : O k a y . Y o u c a n re a d a n d w rite; is th a t co rre c t? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : U h -hu h (In d icati n g a n a ffi rm ati v e resp o n se.) V ery w e ll. B Y TH E CO U R T : D o you know a nythi ng aboutthe R ul es of E vi dence orany o f th o se k in d o f ru les th a t y o u ’re g o in g to h a v e to k n o w w h e n w e ’re try in g th is cas e? B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : N ot100 per cent . I know enough w her e I ’ m s peaki ng upon – on m y – I ’ m j us t– I w antm y m ot i on t o be hear d and j us ts peak about on m y m ot i ons , butas f aras evi dence , p utt i ng evi dence f orw ar d, ai n’ tno

### 6

evi dence I ’ m r eal l y goi ng t o putf orw ar d. I ’ m j us tbas i cal l y s ayi ng w hatthey goti s pl ai nl y ci r cumst ant i al , and [ C ] onf r ont at i on [ C ] l ause pl ai nl y s t at es that

–th a t y o u c a n ’t
. . . . ¶8. A f

t erthe ci r cui tcou rtad dress ed B radl ey’s vari ou s m oti on s , gr ant i ng s om e and den ying others , i t s exam i nati on of B radl ey co nti nu ed, as f oll ow s: B Y T H E C O U R T : . . . W el l , that’ s w hy I think i t ’s bett er i f yo u l et M r. G oo dw i n try thi s case, i nst ead o f you. I m ean y ou w rot e al l thes e m oti on s, r i ght ? D i d you do thes e? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : U h -h u h (I n d ic a tin g a n a ff irm a tiv e re s p o n s e .) B Y T H E C O U R T : W ell , yo u ’re no t d u m b , I ca n t ell th at, bu t the p rob lem is I d o n ’tth in ky o u u n d e rs ta n d th e [C ]o n fr o n ta tio n [C ]la u s e in . . . [ Cr aw f or d v. W as hington , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 13 5 4 , 1 5 8 L . E d . 2 d 1 7 7 (2 0 0 4 )] w e ll e n o u g h to . . . u n d e rsta n d th e n u a n c e s o f th a t ca se . N o w , if y o u w a n t to re p re s e n t y o u rs e lf

, I t h in ky o u c a n . Y o u ’r e n o t . . . s tu p id , y o u ’ r e n o t . . . m ent al l y r et ar ded.

. . . B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : . . . I’m try ing to g et th e c ase d o w n p at, b ec au se I’m lo o k in g –I’ m lo o k in g a t th is , c o m m o n s e n s e w ill te ll y o u I’ m n o t g u ilty . I di dn’ ts t eal nothi ng, ai n’ tnobody abouts een me s t eal nothi ng.

. . . B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : - - everythi ng i s pl ai nl y he s ay, s he s ay. B Y T H E C O U R T : O kay. B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : A i n’ t. . . nobody gotnothi ng f orm e. A i n’ tnobody gotno camer a, ai n’ tgotnothi ng. B Y T H E C O U R T : M r . B r adl ey, j ur i es have t o hearthat , and w e have t o have evi dence
. A nd i f

ther e’ s no evi dence , then I ’ m goi ng t o turn you l oos e. B ut i f ther e’ s evi dence , then a j ury get s t o m ake the dec i s i on. B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : A ll righ t.

. . .

### See URCCC 8.05( 2), (3) , & (4). 3 

### 7 B Y T H E C O U R T : I f

you w antt o try thi s cas e, I ’ m goi ng t o have t o hol d you – you need t o under s t and, I ’ ve gott o hol d you t o the s ame rul es as i f you’ r e an att orney. A nd i f

you’ r e doi ng s om ethi ng – BY T HE DE F E NDANT : C o u l d y o u g i v e m e s o me . . . ru l e s o r. . . y o u k n o w, j us ts om e f

i ne poi ntrul es thatI can – B Y T H E C O U R T : N o , sir, I ca n ’t. B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : . . . I ’ m s ayi ng w hatyou goi ng t o t el l m e nott o do. B Y T H E C O U R T : N o, s i r , I can’ tdo that , becaus e I coul dn’ tdo thatf orthe St at e and I coul dn’ tdo thati f M r . G oodw i n w as tryi ng the ca s e. B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : W el l , I s t i l l
. . . w ant– i tdon’ tm ake no di f f er ence , I w antt o – B Y T H E C O U R T : Y ou need t o under s t and – B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : I ’d ra ther g o p ro se . I just w an t t o g o p ro se . Itd o n ’t m ake no di f

f er ence . B Y T H E C O U R T : I can’ thel p you. N ow M r . G oodw i n can – B Y T H E D E FE N D A N T : I under s t and. I ’ l l go pr o s e. I tdon’ tm ake no d if fe re n c e . . . .[ ]

3

. . . B Y T H E C O U R T : . . . N ow , you’ r e goi ng t o l i st en. I cannotf avorone s i de orthe other
. M r . G oodw i n w i l l b e h ere t o hel p you t o try thi s cas e. I f you w antt o as k hi m aboutobj ect i ons and thi ngs l i ke that , he w i l l hel p you. I thi nk you’ r e maki ng a mi s t ake i f you try thi s cas e by your s el f
. M r . G oodw i n i s an exce l l enttr i al l aw yer , and he’ l l do an exc el l ent j ob f oryou. I f

you i ns i s ton d e fe n d in g y o u rs e lf

, I w ill le t y o u . . . . T he ci r cui tcourtf

urthers t at ed thatw hi l e B r adl ey coul d pr ocee d pro se , hi s appoi nt ed
c o u n s e l w o u ld a c t a s “ s ta n d b y c o u n s e l.”

### 8

¶9
. F o ll o w ing a lun ch b rea k , B rad ley a g ain re it era ted th at he w ishe d to re p rese n t h im self, as f oll ow s: B Y T H E C O U R T : Y ourl aw yerw i l l hel p you, i f you l ethi m he l p you. H ave you deci ded, do you .
. . w antt o ar gue thi s c as e and exami ne the w i tnes s es and th in g s lik e th a t? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es, si r. B Y T H E C O U R T : A n d y o u u n d e rsta n d th e d iffic u lty in re p re se n tin g y o u rse lf a n d a ll o f th a t. I’v e talk e d to y o u a b o u t th a t, ri g h t? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es, si r. B Y T H E C O U R T : A nd i t ’ s a dec i s i on thatyou’ r e f r eel y m aki ng? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es, si r. B Y T H E C O U R T : A ll ri g h t. M r. G o o d w in, hav e y o u d iscu ssed w ith M r. B r adl ey the di f

f i cul t i es of

s el f
- r epr es ent at i on? B Y M R
. G O O D W I N : Y es , s i r . A tthe ap propri at e t i m e w hen the evi dence comes i n, though, I w i l l t el l hi m obj ect , I w i l l t el l hi m w hy. B Y T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t. B Y M R . G O O D W IN : Y o u k n o w , an d th a t’s a ll I ca n re a lly d o a t th is p o in t. B Y T H E C O U R T : W ell , the S u p rem e C o u rtha s i n d icated un less I be li ev e h e’s notcompet ent , and he’ s – w hi l e ar gum ent at i ve, I have no r eas on t o bel i eve that he’ s del us i onal orany otheri ndi cat i on. H e has fi l ed m ot i ons . . . w i th the C ourtthats how s thathe’ s , you know , nott ot al l y – B Y M R
. G O O D W IN : H e u n d e rsta n d s th e the o ry o f th e o b jec tio n s th a t I w o u ld m a k e a t trial. B Y T H E C O U R T : Y es, si r. B Y M R . G O O D W IN : H e d o e sn ’t u n d e rsta n d th e C o n stitu tio n a l o r th e ru le b a sis o n it, so I w ill ju st te ll h im to o b jec t. B Y T H E C O U R T : F a ir e n o u g h . A ll righ t.

### 9

. . . B Y M S. C L E M O N S: So Y ourH onor , f orcl ar i f i cat i on, M r . B r adl ey w i l l be h a n d lin g b o th o p e n in g a n d c lo sin g a s w e ll? B Y T H E C O U R T : I s thatr i ght , M r . B r adl ey? Y ou’ r e goi ng t o do the openi ng sta tem e n t an d th e c lo sin g a rg u m e n t? BY T HE DE F E NDANT : Ye a h
. Ba s i c a l l y , I g o tmy c l o s i n g a r g u me n td o wn p a t, b u t I ’m ju s t g o in g to –ju s t s p e a k o u t th e m in d o n th e o p e n in g p a rt . ¶1 0
. T h e a fore m en ti o n ed tr an script ex ce rp ts u n e q u iv o c a lly re v e al th at th e c ir cu it co u rt
a b id e d b y o u r l a w a n d th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f U n if o rm C ir c u it a n d C o u n ty C o u rtR u le 8 .0 5
. See U R C C C 8. 05. B r adl ey m ade a know i ng and i nt el l i gentw ai verof hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght to a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 1
. A cc o rdin g ly, this C o u rt affirm s the fi n al jud g m en t an d sen tenc e o f the C ir cu itC o u rt of L ow ndes C ounty as t o B r adl ey. ¶12. CO NV I CT I ON OF T HI RD - OF F E NS E S HOP L I F T I NG AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T ODY O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . AP P E L L AN T S HA L L P A Y R E S T I T UT I ON I N T HE A M O U N T O F $42 . 21 , A FI N E O F $20 0. 00 A N D A LL C O U R T C O STS. W A LL ER , C. J. , CA R LSO N AN D DICK I N SO N , P. JJ . , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.