Opinion ID: 1094303
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: unconstitutional use of unrelated bad acts.

Text: The record made in the lower court reveals that prior to indictment the trial judge had petitioner brought before him and questioned him extensively about legal representation. [Trial record pp. 4-16]. Petitioner frequently refers to the trial record, and therefore presumes that we have the privilege of doing the same. The entire record reveals that from the outset, petitioner insisted on being his attorney during all proceedings. The law and all options granted petitioner, constitutionally and otherwise, were fully explained to petitioner. He was also questioned as to his experience in trial advocacy. Petitioner related specific instances of cases in which he had represented himself under criminal charges. He even stated that he was such a successful attorney, that one of his cases tried by him alone, resulted in a mistrial. He stated that he had had access for many years to a federally subsidized law library while serving time in detention centers. He stated he was thoroughly familiar as to the manner in which his defense should be conducted. Petitioner took the stand and testified on the sentencing phase of the trial and reiterated when he was specifically asked, You are your own attorney, are you not? and he answered, Yes, sir, I am. Further, You are testifying here in court voluntarily as your own attorney, is that right? Petitioner answered Yes, sir, I am. [R. 931] On final argument, the leading legal adviser appointed at the petitioner's request, in discussing petitioner's testimony, stated to the court and jury that the fact of the matter is that he (petitioner) said many things today without advice from counsel. He acts as his own counsel most of the time in certain areas. Petitioner therefore is bound by his own actions. The trial court on October 29, 1981, long before the trial on April 1982, at a time when the record clearly shows petitioner to have been without the use of any drugs of any kind and a very intelligent person, fully advised petitioner of his right to have appointed counsel. There are many pages in the record where the trial judge went further then required to insure that petitioner fully understood his rights. With this full understanding, petitioner insisted on representing himself as his own attorney but requested that legal advisors be appointed to assist him. Never did petitioner change from this stand. As shown above, he reaffirmed this during his own testimony on the stand and it was reaffirmed by one of his three competent, experienced and completely qualified legal advisors during the closing argument. It is evident from the record that petitioner was an intelligent person. He understood everything that was said to him and all proceedings. Petitioner can not now complain that he, as his own attorney, at his insistence, failed to preserve a possible appeal claim. He did not preserve any claim under this section of his petition. There is no indication of any request by him for advice from his legal advisors. He did not raise any such claim on appeal; and he is both barred and estopped from raising such claims here at this time. [See authorities hereinbefore set out.]