Opinion ID: 2544933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Waiver of the Right to Appointed Counsel

Text: First, we will address the validity of the defendant's waiver of counsel and the implications of recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Sixth Amendment expressly provides that an accused in a criminal trial has the right to the assistance of counsel. However, the Supreme Court in Faretta v. California, held the Sixth Amendment also implies a right of self-representation. 422 U.S. 806, 822, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2534, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) The Faretta Court noted that the self-represented defendant can not later claim he was denied effective assistance by his own representation. Id. at 834, 95 S.Ct. at 2541 n. 46. Certain limits have been put on the right of self-representation due to the tension between it and the express right to the assistance of counsel. Before Faretta, in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 345-47, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1062-63, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), the Court determined that the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit a court from removing a sufficiently disruptive defendant from the courtroom and continuing the trial without him. [11] Then, in McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), the Court held the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit a court from mandating some minimal involvement by standby counsel. Also, in Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth App. Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), the Court determined that the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation does not extend to appellate proceedings. Finally, in Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008), the Court established a new limitation: the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit the states from forcing counsel on persons who, although competent to stand trial, still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. The defense attempts to invoke this recent limitation on the scope of the right to self-representation from Edwards to argue that the district court committed reversible error in granting defendant's request to represent himself without considering his intellectual impairments and paranoid beliefs. We find this claim fails, in part, because Edwards authorizes, but not does not require, the states to adopt a more rigorous competency standard for mentally ill or incapacitated defendants who wish to represent themselves at trial. [12] The argument also fails because there is very little evidence in the record to suggest the defendant suffers from a significant mental impairment such that the considerations of Edwards would be appropriate, and, as discussed herein, there is significant evidence to the contrary. Therefore, even if this court were inclined to accept the Edwards invitation to construct new jurisprudence concerning an accused's right to self-representation when the accused suffers from a significant mental defect or illness, the present case does not offer the facts on which it should be built. In Edwards, the Court partially separated the standard for competence to waive counsel from the standard for competence to stand trial, as set forth in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). [13] Previously, in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2686, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993), the Court treated the standard to waive counsel as identical to the Dusky standard. In Godinez, the Court had found that no competence beyond that needed to stand trial was required for a mentally ill defendant to discharge his attorneys, plead guilty, and to forego the presentation of mitigating evidence. The Godinez Court explicitly rejected the claim that a higher level of mental functioning is required or that a self-represented defendant must have greater powers of comprehension, judgment, and reason, and emphasized that the competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself. Godinez, 509 U.S. 389, 399, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2686, 125 L.Ed.2d 321. The Court further clarified: In addition to determining that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty or waive counsel is competent, a trial court must satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28-29, 113 S.Ct. 517, 523, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (guilty plea); Faretta, supra, 422 U.S., at 835, 95 S.Ct., at 2541 (waiver of counsel). In this sense there is a heightened standard for pleading guilty and for waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence. Id. at 400-401, 113 S.Ct. at 2687. The Godinez court concluded that, although the States are free to adopt competency standards that are more elaborate than the Dusky formulation, the Due Process Clause does not impose these additional requirements. Id. at 402, 113 S.Ct. at 2688. In Edwards, the Court considered whether the Indiana courts were correct in finding that the Sixth Amendment required them to reverse the convictions of a schizophrenic defendant, who had been restored to competency to stand trial but whose Faretta motion had been denied by the district court. The Edwards court first distinguished Godinez on the basis that Godinez's Faretta motion was granted and Godinez pled guilty. Id. The Court then expressed concern for the dignity and apparent fairness of the proceedings considering the complexity of the problem of mental illness and the ways it could manifest itself in self-representation. Id. at 176, 128 S.Ct. at 2387. Given those concerns, the Edwards Court found the Sixth Amendment was not an obstacle to preserving the integrity of the proceedings in the rare case that involves a defendant who is competent to stand trial but too mentally ill to function without professional counsel in court: We consequently conclude that the Constitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendant's mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so. That is to say, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Edwards, 554 U.S. at 177-78, 128 S.Ct. at 2387-88. Therefore, Edwards did not overrule Godinez, but clarified that Godinez should not be viewed as holding that the constitution prohibits the states from recognizing that a defendant, although competent to stand trial, may not necessarily be competent to represent himself due to some mental illness or defect. Edwards did not impose on courts any new competency requirements or procedures to determine if a defendant has intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Thus, in the instant case, the question presented is whether the waiver was valid under existing state law, which involves determining whether the defendant was competent to waive counsel and whether he did so knowingly and intelligently with full understanding of the risks and possible consequences. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Trial courts should inquire into the accused's age, education, and mental condition in deciding, on the totality of the circumstances, whether the accused understands the significance of the waiver. State v. Strain, 585 So.2d 540, 542 (La.1991). Further, a defendant must be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record demonstrates he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with his eyes open. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541 (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 242, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942)). In other words, a defendant must know the consequences of his action. City of Monroe v. Wyrick, 393 So.2d 1273, 1275 (La.1981). The assertion of the right must also be clear and unequivocal. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541; see also State v. Hegwood, 345 So.2d 1179, 1181-82 (La.1977). After reviewing the entire record, we find there is little reason to doubt the defendant in this matter clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to represent himself and did so knowingly and intelligently, although to his detriment. In this case, the defendant filed numerous pro se motions in which he initially sought to act as co-counsel, maintaining his right to assistance of counsel, but also exercising his right to represent himself. [14] Defendant also filed motions to dismiss his defense counsel and appoint new counsel, indicating his counsel was not giving him copies of his case. These pro se motions, among others, [15] were continually filed from July 27, 2007, to January 10, 2008. The district court repeatedly denied these motions and the court of appeal denied writs. Defendant, however, ultimately enlarged upon the scope of his motions, and implicated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, by stating at a hearing held on September 5, 2007, I just want to secure my right to obtain everything dealing with my case that the state is in possession of, and I just want to represent myself. The district court then engaged in a colloquy with defendant to clarify whether he wished to represent himself and also directed him to confer with defense counsel, who then stated: Your Honor, Mr. Bell has an oral motion that he'd like to represent himself in this capital case. That's what he wanted to ask you. However, defense counsel further explained that what the defendant wanted was to be able to speak during the trial as an attorney although he was represented. Based on defense counsel's characterization of defendant's oral motion, the district court correctly denied his request. The defense cites no new authority to show that a right to represent oneself and be represented at the same time has been established. Nonetheless, the defendant persisted in filing pro se motions that intimated his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself. At a status hearing held on October 31, 2007, the district court indicated that it would set those motions for a hearing. At the hearing that followed, on November 5, 2007, the district court judge engaged in a colloquy with defendant to determine whether he wished to represent himself, after which he withdrew his request. [16] At that time, defendant stated he had filed the motion because he believed it would force the state and defense counsel to provide him with copies of all pertinent documents. On appeal, defendant relies on this expression of his motivation to argue that he never wished to represent himself. However, this does not capture the full state of the record, which shows the defendant continued to file pro se motions and demonstrated a strong desire to control his case and function as an attorney, until he ultimately resolved to dismiss counsel and represent himself, which decision was honored after a Faretta hearing on February 28, 2008. The February 28, hearing was prompted by a new motion from defendant, a Motion to Dismiss Defense Counsel and Act as Pro Se Counsel filed on February 4, 2008, in which he wrote by hand: At this time the Defendant would like to remove court appointed counsel from record and [assert] his right to self representation under La. C.Cr.P. art. 511. At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel indicated defendant had spoken with both appointed counsel, an outside defense attorney, as well as the head public defender and that he still wished to go forward with the motion. In an exchange with the district court judge, defendant indicated that, although he still believed that important information was being withheld by counsel, this was no longer his sole motivation for asserting his right to self-representation; he also believed that appointed counsel was ineffective and, after conferring with the attorneys, he fully understood the nature of his request and the consequences of self-representation. The district court then inquired into the defendant's age, education, ability to comprehend, read, and write, and further verified that he understood the charges against him, the order of trial, and the potential penalty. The court also determined that he understood the presumption of innocence and his right to testify regardless of his choice to represent himself or have the assistance of counsel. Further, at this hearing the court reminded the defendant he was bound by procedural requirements and the rules of evidence and ensured he understood the limited role of standby counsel. This colloquy sufficed to show that the defendant was well apprised of his rights and the inherent risks of self-representation, and further, that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appointed counsel. Although defendant emphasizes those portions of the dialogue that are favorable to his position, [17] a fair reading of its entirety does not support the defendant's claim. During the colloquy, the court asked the defendant if his purpose in filing his motion to represent himself was to get all the copies of his case, and the defendant responded, in part, but went on to say, I want to go through with my motion to represent myself because I feel like I'm not getting the effective assistance I ... I'm required. Further, the defendant made a number of knowing and unequivocal statements indicating his desire for self-representation, in particular: [The court]: You either represent yourself or you have someone representing you. Do you understand that? [Bell]: Yes, sir. I wish to go forward. .... [The court]: To represent yourself? [Bell]: Yes, sir. .... [The court]: If you wish to represent yourself then you can do so. [Bell]: Yes, sir. I wish to proceed with that, your honor. .... [Bell]: They wouldn't be representing me neither. I mean I would be representing myself. .... [The court]: Understanding [that you face the death penalty] do you wish to proceed to represent yourself? [Bell]: Yes, sir. .... [The court]: What is your desire? [Bell]: Self-representation. These were not equivocal or questioning statements. Instead, the record shows that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's desire to control the presentation of his case was clear and unequivocal, and his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, free, and voluntary. When asked if he desired self-representation because he believed he still was not receiving all the copies of his case or if he truly thought he could do a better job than his appointed attorneys, defendant said, numerous reasons, JudgeYour Honor. Then, when asked if he felt as though he could do a better job of representing himself, defendant replied, yes, sir. The defendant's dissatisfaction with appointed counsel and his desire to represent himself crystallized for a number of reasons over time, which was his decision to make. In other words, the record shows that defendant, in the language of Faretta, wished to make [his] own defense personally. 422 U.S. at 819, 95 S.Ct. at 2533 Additionally, after defendant had been representing himself for over two weeks, his standby counsel filed a Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Pro Se Motion to Dismiss Counsel, and the motion was heard seven days later. At this hearing, defendant stated, Your Honor, if I can't if I can't have my attorneys and bebe co-counsel with them, I will represent myself, and I don't want to entertain their motion. The court attempted to confirm once again that the defendant knew there is no right to be both represented and represent yourself, he had every right to take the stand regardless of his representation, he is not being withheld discovery that representing himself will allow him to obtain, and he has been provided or allowed to inspect every piece of evidence in the case. Defendant confirmed he understood the above, but objected to the statement that he had received all of the evidence, as there was a dispute about a certain statement and a few other items that were absent from a box the state provided to the defendant. After standby counsel and the state were heard on the motion, the court insisted the defendant articulate why he opposed their motion. The defendant stated, Because I wouldn't be able toI wouldn't be able to act as co-counsel at my trial. That's the only reason why I'm objecting to their motion. The court then asked what he wanted to have the ability to do as co-counsel. The defendant stated, Talk just like my lawyer would be able to talk to witnesses, question witnesses. The defendant then reiterated his desire to act as co-counsel if he had that right, but absent that right he stated, I'm representing myself. It is clear the defendant in this case desired to represent himself, and was well-apprised of the dangers and pitfalls of his venture. As for defendant's complaint that, before he was found competent to waive assistance of counsel, he was treated by the court as unrepresented and thereby denied effective representation, this claim is without basis in law or fact. First, there is no indication that appointed counsel were prohibited from participating in the Faretta hearing on February 28. Although the district court had encouraged the defendant to argue his own pro se motion at a prior hearing as a taste of what he would experience if he dismissed his appointed attorneys, the February 28 hearing began with no such admonition and defense counsel participated. Nor did defense counsel object to the manner in which the district court conducted the proceedings until well after the court had ruled. Second, Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.2001), which the defendant characterizes as supporting his claim that he was denied assistance of counsel at the Faretta hearing until the moment his motion was granted, is readily distinguishable. Although it does not merit lengthy discussion, Appel is a habeas corpus case in which it was claimed that the defendant was constructively denied counsel in violation of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), before the trial court accepted the defendant's waiver of counsel. However, counsel in Appel did not prepare or perform any investigation of any kind, and in fact did not believe that they had been appointed; and they were wholly inactive at the hearing at which Appel was found competent to waive counsel. In stark contrast, appointed counsel for the instant defendant were very active throughout their representation and, as discussed above, even filed a Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Pro Se Motion to Dismiss Counsel while acting as standby counsel. In accepting the defendant's waiver, however, the district court did make an erroneous statement regarding his access as an indigent defendant to public resources. At a prior hearing, the district court had warned the defendant that if he were to forego the assistance of his appointed public defenders, he would also be giving up the resources that the State of Louisiana affords to the Office of the Public Defender, resources for investigators, resources for experts and other monetary resources that you would be waiving and giving up because of your desire to represent yourself. The court explicitly asked if the defendant understood, to which he replied, yes, sir. This statement went unchallenged by appointed counsel. Later, the district court again asked defendant: Do you understand that you will be giving up the financial resources of the Office of the Public Defender in your defense? Again, this statement went unchallenged. Thereafter, with a trial date of March 31, 2008, approaching, defendant filed a motion to continue on March 7, which was heard on March 14, 2008. At that hearing, when defendant argued that he still needed to hire experts, the district court again informed him that he had forfeit[ed] the resources of the Office of the Public Defender. Standby counsel remained silent but the state clarified that, as an indigent defendant, the defendant had mechanisms by which he could obtain funds for experts. [18] However, after the state argued that defendant's request was too vague, defendant clarified that he wanted the revolver and casings tested for fingerprints, Claudia Brown's medical records and X-rays to be evaluated by a medical expert, and the apartment's surveillance video to be evaluated for evidence of tampering. At that time, the district court informed the defendant that his request was not denied but instructed him to use the assistance of standby counsel to request funds from the Office of the Public Defender for the performance of such requests. The district court reiterated this twice during voir dire and again referred defendant to standby counsel and the Office of the Public Defender. Finally, during voir dire on April 3, the Public Defender District Director provided defendant with a letter that explained how to access the funds of his office. Defendant apparently successfully navigated this procedure because, on April 10, during trial, defendant's expert arrived and took possession of the revolver and casings for testing. It is not surprising that this expert was not then called to testify because, as noted above, these items had been meticulously wiped for DNA, pursuant to agreement of the parties. Fingerprints were unlikely to survive that process. Regardless, the district court's initial misstatements caused little, if any, delay. Rather, it appears the majority of the delay was attributable to the defendant's failure to follow the procedures as directed and that the desired expert testing was ultimately achieved but turned out to be valueless. As to the defense's argument concerning the restrictions put in place for standby counsel, the defense contends the court did not ensure the proceedings were fair and allowed the prosecutors to take advantage of the defendant's ignorance of the law. The defense cites McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (U.S.1984), for the proposition that the district court was allowed to permit stand-by counsel's active participation at trial and erred by placing significant restrictions on standby counsel. In McKaskle, the defendant, who was proceeding pro se, changed his mind multiple times concerning the role of his standby counsel and tried to use their participation at trial to show his right to the presentation of his own defense was interfered with. Id. The Supreme Court held that, although several of the incidents with standby counsel were regrettable, the overall participation of standby counsel considering the defendant's frequent changes in position regarding standby counsel's role did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. Id. at 181, 104 S.Ct. at 952. The Court went on to say, Faretta does not require a trial judge to permit `hybrid' representation of the type [the defendant] was actually allowed. Id. at 184, 104 S.Ct. at 953. The Court also stated, participation by standby counsel without the defendant's consent should not be allowed to destroy the jury's perception that the defendant is representing himself. Id. at 178, 104 S.Ct. at 951. In the instant case, the district court instructed the defendant and his standby counsel of the role they were to play. In particular, on March 26, 2008, in response to an oral motion for clarification of the role of standby counsel, the court stated: the court will not allow standby counsel to erode the perception of the trier of fact that the defendant is not in full control of his case. However, the court will request standby counsel be seated nearby the defendant. I will request that they be available to answer any questions the defendant may have in regards to courtroom procedure or any other question that he deems appropriate with standby counsel. I will allow standby counsel to perform any function that the court deems is the appropriate [sic] under the circumstances, so long as the conduct does not impede or impair the defendant's ability to control the presentation of his case or erode in the eyes of the jury that he is not representing himself. Further, according to the state, Mr. Rome frequently sat in the first row in the courtroom, and the defendant was never denied the chance to consult with standby counsel when he desired, and in fact met with them frequently during the trial. The court recessed the trial multiple times allowing the defendant to meet with standby counsel when he did not know the proper procedure for impeachment or when he needed instruction to procure relevant information from his witnesses. The district court was not required to allow this hybrid representation as the defense suggests, and did not err in its procedures concerning standby counsel. In this case, the district court made sure to preserve the image that defendant was in complete control of his case, but did not curtail the role of standby counsel to such a degree as to interfere with the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense or his right for a reliable determination of his guilt and punishment. Finally, at the heart of the defendant's complaint that he was erroneously permitted to waive counsel is the claim that a mentally retarded defendant with an I.Q. in the 50s is incapable of representing himself in a multiple count capital trial. The I.Q. score is repeatedly emphasized. However, for the reasons discussed in below, the assertion that this defendant is mentally retarded with an I.Q. score in the mentally retarded range is unfounded.