Opinion ID: 2759419
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ickes’ Motion to Withdraw

Text: On August 13, 2012, in a hearing before the circuit court, Ickes made an oral motion to withdraw as counsel: I’ve just been informed by Ms. Harter prior to coming into court today that [she is] unhappy with my services and would like me to withdraw . . . I don’t know if your Honor needs to hear any more from me. It’s Ms. Harter that’s – that’s taken issue with my representation. 6 Specifically, Harter complained that she was unable to schedule an appointment although she “tried and tried.” She also noted that when she finally did meet with her public defender that he told her, “You’re crazy,” after she told him that she had “a new job as an MTV assistant casting director.” Harter also claimed that her public defender would “put [her] down” and “negat[e] every single thing” she asked him to do. 5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The circuit court responded by noting Ickes’ level of preparation and that Ickes had been Harter’s counsel for over six months. The circuit court posited that Ickes had met with Harter “several times” at Ickes’ office. Ickes, however, indicated she only had one scheduled meeting with Harter that lasted an hour and five minutes on March 8th and their “other discussions happened over the phone and before and following court.” The circuit court also stated it was familiar with Ickes’ work and diligence in her investigation including locating a witness on the mainland. Ickes responded, “Judge, actually, that never panned out. I did attempt calls and writing, but that never turned into anything.” The circuit court then verified with the State that there were less than thirty pages of discovery. The prosecutor indicated there was also a CD that included a 911 call. Ickes related that, upon reviewing the discovery, she did not have any record of having ever received the CD from the prosecutor’s office. In elaborating on her reasons in support of her motion to withdraw as counsel, Ickes stated Harter was “unhappy” with Ickes’ representation. Ickes listed some of Harter’s complaints about Ickes: she was “not prepared”; she was “not paying enough 6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER attention to her case”; she did not return Harter’s phone calls; and she did not have “enough time to prepare to begin with trial tomorrow.” Ickes explained: I think . . . she just feels like I’m not prepared . . . to proceed in her defense. And, you know, any implications of me being ineffective, if she’s unhappy with how I conduct myself during the trial, if how I conducted myself in preparing for her trial, you know, that goes to my credibility as a lawyer, and it’s -- it -- I apologize, Judge, I’m not exactly sure how to frame this, but essentially she’s unhappy with my representation, and she does not want me to represent her anymore. She has indicated to me that she has consulted another attorney, but in effect has used the words that I want to fire you right before this hearing. (Emphases added). Ickes also suggested withdrawal was necessary for her own professional interest, to protect herself from subsequent claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and to secure Harter’s right to effective assistance of counsel: So for those reasons, Judge, for my professional stake in this, and for Ms. Harter’s well-being -- I mean, she is facing these criminal charges, and she is entitled to effective assistance of counsel. If I feel like perhaps there might be some later allegations of me being ineffective, me neglecting her, I certainly need to protect myself. So for those reasons, your Honor, . . . I feel like I . . . need to make this motion to withdraw and assure the Court that it’s not any strategy on my part to try and, you know, waste this Court’s time and push this case any further back than it needs to go. (Emphases added). The circuit court responded that it was aware of Ickes’ reputation for honesty and integrity and commended Ickes for being a “hard working attorney.” The court noted that just because attorneys do not contact their client, the complainant, 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER or other witnesses, it does not necessarily mean they “are incapable of performing outstandingly at time of trial.” The court stated that it did “not doubt” Ickes was prepared for trial, noting she declared she was ready on July 16th. The circuit court emphasized it was taking Ickes at her word and also “based on her reputation for honesty and integrity within our court system.” The court stated it was “not inclined” to allow Ickes to withdraw at “this late date.” In response, Ickes continued to describe her inability to communicate with Harter as a basis for her oral motion to withdraw: [A]nother reason I think it might impede Ms. Harter’s right to a fair trial is that there’s that communication breakdown between the two of us. She doesn’t -- I believe she no longer trusts me . . . It’s really going to impede my ability to prepare her or advise her regarding her potential or her rights to testify in her own defense . . . my ability to actually sit down with her and prepare for potential cross-examination . . . I think that would infringe on her right to a fair trial . . . if she doesn’t trust me . . . . (Emphases added). Harter addressed the court and stated her reasons for requesting Ickes’ withdrawal: I’ve only had one meeting with her, and every month multiple times a month I’ve asked to schedule another meeting just to know what’s been going on with my case, if anything. Because before we had nothing, . . . I told her what had happened and how I didn’t have any understanding of what was going on. . . . And like I’ve said, I’ve never been contacted whatsoever about my case, and I’ve just asked for any knowledge or a meeting or anything. 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (Emphases added). Harter then discussed the periods of trial delays: This case has been going on almost two years. I’ve never waived the Rule 48. . . . I’ve been here every single time on time. There was one where I was like an hour late, and then it was rescheduled. And for that I had a bench warrant, and I was in jail for two months when my court date was scheduled one day later. And I never did anything. The court asked the prosecutor for his Rule 48 calculation.7 After obtaining an expiration date of September 27, 2012, the court indicated it would do its own calculation and instructed defense counsel to also do a recalculation. The court noted that a jury had already been ordered and re-affirmed its determination that Harter would be able to prepare for trial with her counsel “in the little time” she had left because there were “only a few pages of discovery.” The circuit court concluded the hearing by stating that it wanted Ickes and Harter to “talk outside”: It is my belief that a jury on this case has already been ordered for this trial. I believe that . . . because she’s one of the better ones that we have in town, that you can work together and prepare for this in the little time you have left between now because it’s only a few pages of discovery that we’re really talking about, and it's from multiple sources. . . . . . . . . . So this case will proceed tomorrow. I want both of you -- you and your attorney to talk outside, and tomorrow 7 Rule 48 refers to Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 48, which sets forth a six-month period for trial to commence after a prescribed event has occurred and also establishes excludable periods for purpose of time computation. 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER morning at 8:30 I want you guys back here for further status hearing. (Emphases added). At the beginning of the status hearing the next morning, the circuit court inquired into whether Harter followed the court’s “order” to talk to her attorney “as soon as court was completed.” During the course of this exchange, Harter indicated she did not meet with Ickes: THE COURT: Ms. Harter, please stand. The Court yesterday ordered you to talk to your attorney as soon as court was completed . . . yesterday. Did you do so? HARTER: No. COURT: Why not? HARTER: I didn’t hear you say that I needed to talk to my attorney. THE COURT: I made myself very clear yesterday to you. HARTER: I didn’t hear it. It was not very clear to me. Harter was apparently speaking loudly, and the court informed her to lower her voice, warned her about interrupting the court, and directed her to follow the instructions of the court. The court resumed its inquiry into Harter’s failure to follow its order to meet with her attorney. Harter tried to explain she had gone to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel: THE COURT: Okay. Now, when the Court orders you to do something, you do it. I’ve been notified now by you that you did not stay around to meet with your attorney. HARTER: I went to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. THE COURT: I didn’t ask you why. I didn’t ask you why. Today, when you arrived, did you talk to your attorney? 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER HARTER: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And what was the results of that conversation? HARTER: I had already pled not guilty, and she wanted to know if I’d change my plea to say no contest, that there would be some kind of deal arranged. But then she said that there would be no way to appeal or address this case in any way, and there’s already an investigator on this case from yesterday. And he said it’s a hate crime. To get another lawyer because it’s a hate crime. THE COURT: Who said it’s a hate crime? HARTER: The other investigator because the people -- when all the police showed up and stuff, they were saying that I was a white haole bitch and a tourist, and when -- as soon as I told them I had lived here for 16 years, that’s when the courts actually let me out of jail three days later. THE COURT: Okay. HARTER: Because they thought I was a tourist the whole time. (Emphases added). The circuit court then asked Harter about the status of her relationship with Ickes and also evaluated the level of preparation required for the case: THE COURT: What’s the current status of your employment with your attorney? HARTER: I don’t know what you’re asking. THE COURT: Well, I can tell you that she has done her homework. She has represented to the Court that she did get the discovery. She has reviewed the discovery. By the way, the Court will obtain a copy of the police reports and seal it so that any appellate court reviewing this matter will know how small the discovery is, and my guesstimate is that only nine pages of substance are actually typewritten of which it’s divided between three witnesses who saw the same thing. And so you’re only really talking about three – three pages of police report of really true substance about the facts of this case. I would determine that going over that police report, analyzing it is a matter of an hour, maybe two hours of which the defense attorney has indicated to the Court that it has. Defense attorney on behalf of you declared ready 11 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER which told the Court that she was ready for trial and able to represent you at trial on June 16th of this year. (Emphases added). The circuit court stated that it understood the “sole or the focal” reason Harter was not able to work with her counsel was because Ickes did not return Harter’s phone calls the previous week. Harter responded that the problem had started much earlier: Actually, since the very beginning I had one meeting with her, and every -- at least every month to every two weeks I was giving her a call saying that I needed her to call me. I needed to set up another interview or meeting of some sort. I have papers to give you. If you could give me a call back or send me an e-mail, anything. I never once received a phone call or an e-mail or any of the sort, and I’ve left messages with her office . . . (Emphases added). The court questioned why Harter had not raised these concerns about Ickes’ “unresponsiveness” at the previous court hearing. THE COURT: My question to you is on July 16th, the last time you appeared, when you heard your attorney declare that you guys were ready for trial, how come you didn’t bring that up at that time? HARTER: I was never addressed in court. I just would stand here and not say anything this whole time. And now that I’ve started to say something, I’ve been threatened with the sheriff.[8] THE COURT: So you -- so you’re -- all of a sudden you’re – you’re saying something? I mean, it would have appeared to me that when you appeared to me on February, in April, in May, in -- in July, you should have said something to me at that time. 8 At one point Ickes told Harter not to interrupt the circuit court judge, warning her, “He’s going to call the sheriff.” 12 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER HARTER: From April until now, we were still waiting to hear back from the Honolulu Police Commission because my report was never put into the paperwork as part of the police reports, which is what I was trying to do. And it’s been 5 1/2 months instead of six weeks, which is -- is as long as it takes. (Emphases added). The court concluded its colloquy by asking Harter if she could work with Ickes, and Harter’s response related to not having been asked about waiving Rule 48. THE COURT: Well, this case has been hanging around long enough, and I’m not going to let any more cobwebs collect on this case. Is it your determination that you can work with your attorney? HARTER: Well, also before when the -- I guess the Rule 48 was waived, I was never asked if I wanted to waive the Rule 48. Like, again, I was never addressed and asked that question. Just like everybody else has been asked since I’ve been sitting here all this time, I was never asked if that was okay. (Emphases added). The court did not inquire further into whether Harter believed that she could work with Ickes as her counsel. The circuit court then explained its analysis of Harter’s motion to substitute counsel under a four-prong test for substitution of counsel from United States v. Doe, 272 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2001). As to the first factor, “whether Defendant made a timely motion requesting new counsel,” the court found the motion was untimely given that it was “the eve of trial.” Second, the circuit court found that it “adequately inquired into the matter” because it “did a searching and probing inquiry 13 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER into the defendant.” During the court’s discussion of the third factor, “whether the conflict between the defendant and her attorney was so great that it resulted . . . in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense,” Harter interjected that “there was such a lack of communication” that she “didn’t even know it was the eve of trial.” With respect to the fourth prong, the court found Harter was responsible for the breakdown in communication, noting that Harter had not met with her counsel the previous day as required and that earlier that morning Harter’s voice was “enraged” at her counsel: THE COURT: Okay. Well, then the fourth factor is whether the defendant substantially and unjustifiably contributed to the breakdown in the communication, and I also find that. When the Court ordered you to -- to talk to your attorney yesterday, and you walked out of here and kept on going despite the fact that the Court told you to talk to your attorney – HARTER: I didn’t hear it. I just told you that. THE COURT: -- and yesterday I told you to be back at 8:30 and you didn’t. And now I find out that -- that you were outside with -- with your voice enraged at your attorney. You don't do that. HARTER: No, she was yelling at me. I wasn't yelling at her. THE COURT: . . . [I]t doesn’t matter. When this arguments happen like this, you know, I -- yesterday when you left here, you were responsible for the breakdown, and I think the record is quite clear from my colloquy with you that, you know, a relationship as far as an attorney-client relationship with you need to understand cannot be onesided. (Emphases added). The circuit court concluded Ickes was properly prepared to represent Harter. The court ruled that it did not 14 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER find “good grounds” to discharge Ickes and consequently required Harter to choose between two options: “either . . . keep” Ickes, or “proceed to trial this morning by yourself.” The court explained to Harter that the question was whether her attorney is properly prepared to go to trial, and the court found “yes” that Ickes was “ample and ready” to defend Harter’s interests “zealously.” The circuit court emphasized to Harter that she was entitled to counsel only if the court were to find “good cause” to discharge Ickes. The court further explained that since there was “no valid reason for the discharge” the court was “not required to appoint substitute counsel” to represent her, and if she continued to demand substitution, the court “may in its discretion discharge counsel and require the defendant to proceed to trial without representation.” The court then asked Harter if she understood, and Harter was not responsive to the question: HARTER: I was call -- I was speaking to an attorney last night. THE COURT: That’s not my question to you, young lady. Do you understand what I have told you? HARTER: Not really. THE COURT: Okay. Let me break it down for you. If I find that there is good grounds for you to fire your attorney and if I find that there is no valid reason for discharging your attorney, and I’m finding that, I have to advise you that either you’re going to keep her, or you’re going to proceed to trial this morning by yourself. HARTER: I don’t wanna go by myself. 15 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER THE COURT: Then you are obligated to talk to her. HARTER: I was trying to. THE COURT: Okay. Then I will give you that opportunity. This Court will be in recess for half an hour. Call downstairs and subject to call, which means that I may call this case earlier. Counsel for defense, actually . . . I want you to be back . . . in your seats in 20 minutes. ... Okay. You may go outside and confer about this case. If the defendant still wishes to have you represent her, I will keep you. If she doesn’t, . . . I will take the proper steps. ... And she will go to trial alone, by herself, without an attorney, but we’re going to trial this morning. (Emphases added). After the parties returned from the recess and the court resumed the proceedings, the court noted communication between Harter and Ickes was “at least opened” and they were communicating.9