Opinion ID: 1547852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Standing in This Court

Text: During oral argument last night, Mr. Pankowski represented to this Court that he had seen Red Dog within the last twenty-four hours. Mr. Pankowski advised this Court that, in his view, Red Dog was competent. Mr. Pankowski also advised this Court that Red Dog had not authorized him to file the present appeal. This Court directed Mr. Pankowski to confer with Red Dog and to ascertain whether there was any change in Red Dog's prior consistent instructions that Mr. Pankowski take no action to delay the imposition of the death sentence on March 3, 1993. Mr. Pankowski's response was filed in this Court at 11:00 a.m. today and included the following letter from Red Dog. James Red Dog D.C.C.-Smyrna Smyrna, De. 19977 Feb. 27, 1993 Edward Pankowski Esq. Public Defenders Office Wilmington, De. 19805 In re; To the recent motion filed in my behalf albeit against my wishes, for stay of execution. Since the Hon. Judge Barron has ruled in my favor and the court will abide by my wishes of denying said appeal for stay. I hereby request and demand that you or the Public Defender's Office no longer pursue this issue of appeal, review or stay of execution. Thereby allowing the scheduled execution to take place on March 3, 1993. As stated in the letter i faxed to the court on Feb. 25, 1993; any appeals filed at this late date is in retrospect a form of cruel and unusual punishment. An addendum to the sentence the court has already handed down on Dec. 3, 1992. Any further litigation in regards to an appeal at this time and late date. Serves only to reinforce that such actions by you or others within the Public Defender's Office is strictly in your best interests. Therefore, I request and demand that as a client the privilege of decision making within the client-attorney relationship be respected. Also I want it known that I at no time requested Ms. Perillo's services as an attorney. Nor do I want her acting as co-counsel in my behalf. Sincerely, James A. Red Dog cc: Edward Pankowski Esq. James Red Dog My attorney continues to be Edward Pankowski and I want no other Public Defender to represent me. James A. Red Dog 2-27-93 The procedural posture of Red Dog's case before this Court is strikingly similar to the facts presented in Smith v. Armontrout, 857 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir.1988). In both cases, the defendants were sentenced to death. In both cases, the defendant stated that the filing of the notice of appeal was unauthorized, that he wants the appeal dismissed, and that he wants the sentence carried out without further review. Smith v. Armontrout, 857 F.2d at 1229. If Red Dog is competent, the decision to pursue or dismiss any application for postconviction relief or appeal is his to make. Id. The Superior Court has concluded that no scintilla of credible evidence has been presented to suggest that Red Dog's mental condition has changed since the psychiatric examinations were performed which concluded that he was competent. In this opinion, we have affirmed that factual determinations which were made by the Superior Court. Red Dog, who has been determined to be competent, wants this appeal dismissed. Id. Therefore, although we have addressed the merits of the substantive and procedural issues which were presented to the Superior Court, we have serious reservations about whether there is a party before this Court with standing to challenge the decision of the Superior Court to deny the stay of execution. [] Smith v. Armontrout, 857 F.2d at 1230.