Case Name: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven D. BRAKE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1986-02-24
Citations: 110 Idaho 300
Docket Number: No. 15650
Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven D. BRAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 300–302

Head Matter:
715 P.2d 970
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven D. BRAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15650.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Feb. 24, 1986.
Steven D. Brake pro se.
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., A. René Fitzpatrick, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
SHEPARD, Justice.
Defendant-appellant Brake was cited for, and following a jury trial was convicted by the magistrate court of, driving with an expired driver's license in violation of I.C. § 49-322. An appeal was taken to the district court, which affirmed the conviction. On this appeal the sole assertion of error raised and argued is that the magistrate court erred in denying Brake the assistance of a non-attorney counsel in his trial before the magistrate court. Brake's theories and arguments are well expressed in his brief, but it is sufficient to say that they are not supported by legal authority. There is no claim here that Brake was indigent and unconstitutionally denied the right to court-appointed counsel, but only that he had a constitutional right to be represented by a non-lawyer in the trial proceedings.
A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to counsel, U.S. CONST, amend. VI; IDAHO CONST, art. 1 § 13, and a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the constitutional right to appear pro se. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). However, the authorities are unanimous that a defendant in a criminal prosecution has no constitutional right to be represented at trial by a non-lawyer lay counsel. United States v. Bertolini, 576 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Young, 578 F.2d 216 (8th Cir.1978); State v. Stewart, 21 Ariz.App. 123, 516 P.2d 332 (1973); Wesley v. Woods, 42 Or.App. 85, 600 P.2d 421 (1979). See particularly the lengthy analysis and authorities cited in Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D.Tex.1975).
The order of the district court and the conviction entered by the magistrate court are affirmed.
DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ" concur.