Opinion ID: 1135905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Hybrid Representation-

Text: Dunn claims that when the court dismissed the two attorneys, it created a hybrid representation. Because he sat mute and did in no way represent himself, Dunn asserts that the actions by the trial judge deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This Court has discussed hybrid representation in Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558 (Miss. 1993). Hybrid representation is considered to encompass both the participation of the defendant in the conduct of his trial when he has not effectively waived the assistance of an attorney to defend him, and the participation by an attorney in the conduct of the trial when the defendant is defending pro se. Courts commonly refer to the role of the attorney in a situation in which a defendant has not effectively waived assistance of an attorney as that of co-counsel. The role of the attorney in a situation where the defendant has effectively waived counsel and is proceeding pro se is that of stand by or advisory counsel. The former tends to involve a more active role in the representation of the defendant than the latter. Id. at 562. In the case sub judice Dunn requested to represent himself. The trial court instructed both Cooper and Minor to remain at counsel table and do their best to protect Dunn's constitutional rights. Although Dunn was to take over afterwards, Minor made the opening argument for the defense. Dunn did not object or cross-examine either of the State's first two witnesses. In order to ensure his rights were protected, beginning with Sheriff Hitt, Cooper and Minor began to conduct the defense of Dunn by objecting on the record during the State's direct examinations and by cross-examining the State's witnesses. Dunn did not refuse or object to their actions. Cooper and Minor still consulted with Dunn about decisions such as cross-examining witnesses, recalling witnesses, whether to testify, and make a closing argument. Dunn enumerates the factors this Court considers in deciding whether the trial judge granted hybrid representation. These factors include: the defendant's accessibility to counsel; whether and how often he consults with counsel up to the point of the request; the stage of trial at which he requests a participatory role in his defense; the magnitude of the role he desires to assume; whether the trial court encourages immediate and constant accessibility of counsel; and the nature and extent of assistance of counsel which has been provided up to the point of the request, including both substantive and procedural aid. Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 565. Looking at the factors individually it is clear to see that Dunn was not deprived of his right to counsel. First, both attorneys were at Dunn's counsel table during the entire trial. There is no question that Dunn had accessibility to counsel. Second, Dunn had consulted with Cooper and Minor before the trial on several occasions. Their efforts were met with Dunn's uncooperative attitude and disposition. So uncooperative was Dunn toward his court-appointed attorneys, they were unable to prepare his defense in a normal manner. As a result, Cooper and Minor filed a formal motion with the court in which they requested to be removed as lead counsel for Dunn. Third, Dunn requested a participatory role in his defense while in chambers before the trial began. However, he did not actively participate. He merely sat and refused to respond to questions from the court. This prompted the active participation from Cooper and Minor in an attempt to protect Dunn's constitutional rights. Fourth, Dunn wanted to take over his defense after Minor made the opening argument before the jury. However, Dunn only spoke in front of the jury during closing argument. Fifth, the judge repeatedly questioned both attorneys to ensure Dunn had been informed of his rights at trial. He further instructed the attorneys to inform Dunn they would be at counsel table and would assist him in any way possible. In an attempt to make certain Dunn was apprised of all his rights and accessibility to counsel, the judge told him the attorneys would remain at his table throughout the trial proceedings. Sixth, the attorneys began the trial much like co-counsel to Dunn. They began by making an opening statement to the jury. However, when it became apparent Dunn was content to sit by and do nothing, the attorneys represented Dunn vigorously during the remainder of the trial proceedings. This Court in Metcalf wrote of its displeasure of defendants who would use their right to refuse counsel in an attempt to play a cat and mouse game with the court, or as some strategy to place the trial judge in a position where in moving along the business of the court, the judge appears to be arbitrarily depriving the defendant of Counsel. Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 563-64; quoting Evans v. State, 273 So.2d 495 (Miss. 1973). In his preliminary hearing, Dunn was informed by Judge Coleman that he would not intimidate the court, and he needed to consult with his attorney. However, Dunn did not heed this warning or any of the other pleas by the court to encourage Dunn's cooperation with his attorneys. He should not be able to manipulate the court by refusing to cooperate with his attorneys and the court. The trial court, without error, granted Dunn a permissible hybrid representation.