Opinion ID: 2457806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Rhome's Challenges

Text: ¶ 19 It appears that existing precedent in many ways defines the contours of the question before us. A defendant whose competency to stand trial has been questioned must knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel. Hahn, 106 Wash.2d at 893, 726 P.2d 25. In considering whether a defendant whose competency is in question is capable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver, a trial court considers the background, experience and conduct of the accused, which may include a history of mental illness. Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774; Hahn, 106 Wash.2d at 900, 726 P.2d 25. The court may not, however, consider the defendant's `skill and judgment.' Hahn, 106 Wash.2d at 890 n. 2, 726 P.2d 25 (quoting Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 102, 436 P.2d 774 and citing Faretta, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525). ¶ 20 Rhome is essentially asking this court to reconsider Hahn in light of Edwards and to conclude as a matter of law that a judge must independently determine that a defendant is mentally competent not just to stand trial but to represent himself. Rhome sets forth three independent arguments. ¶ 21 First, Rhome argues that his federal Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court allowed him to waive counsel without conducting a searching inquiry into Rhome's capacity to represent himself, given the trial court's knowledge of Rhome's mental health issues. He argues that Edwards supports this claim because there the Supreme Court made clear that the Constitution authorizes a separate inquiry into a defendant's mental competency to conduct trial proceedings even where the defendant is competent to stand trial. PRP at 24. ¶ 22 Second, Rhome argues the due process clause of our state constitution requires a separate inquiry into mental competency to waive counsel when competency is otherwise in question. He relies on Kolocotronis in support of this argument. Washington law pre-dating the United States Supreme Court's decision in Faretta made clear that the mental competency of a defendant who is competent to stand trial, but has a long history of serious mental illness, must be considered in determining whether such a defendant may proceed pro se at trial. PRP at 31 (citing Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774). Rhome further argues that Edwards supports Washington's two-tier competency inquiry. PRP at 33. ¶ 23 We question this reading of the case law. Initially, Rhome overstates the rule Kolocotronis sets forth. Kolocotronis does not hold that a trial court must consider a hopeful pro se defendant's mental health status when competency has been questioned. It instead affirmed the actions of a trial court that did so; the factual posture of the case left for another day a scenario where a trial court did not evaluate a dependent's mental health status when considering a waiver request. That question arose in Hahn. Rhome argues that Edwards overruled  Hahn 's conclusion that the federal constitutional right to self-representation trumped the other countervailing constitutional and prudential concerns. Pet'r's Reply to State's Resp. to PRP (Reply) at 13. But this was not the court's conclusion in Hahn. Looking at the record before it, the court in Hahn merely held that the trial court secured the defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver notwithstanding that the court did not independently evaluate the defendant's mental status following a competency determination. ¶ 24 Moreover, Edwards does not require trial courts to evaluate a defendant's mental health status in order to secure a valid waiver of counsel. Rather, Edwards held that a state court may take this into account, and strongly suggested such considerations are integral to a knowing and intelligent waiver. In short, Hahn remains good law after Edwards, though it cannot be read in isolation from Kolocotronis. Read together, these three cases stand for the proposition that a defendant's mental health status is but one factor a trial court may consider in determining whether a defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, but they do not require us to find that an independent determination of competency for self-representation is a constitutional mandate. [3] ¶ 25 There may be room within the universe of Edwards, Kolocotronis, and Hahn to craft a due-process-based rule requiring a more stringent waiver of counsel for a defendant whose competency is questioned. But the State is correct that this would be a new rule of criminal procedure. State's Resp. to PRP at 12. As noted, our existing law does not require a court to apply a different standard beyond securing a knowing and intelligent waiver from a mentally ill defendant seeking to waive counsel and proceed pro se. Hahn, 106 Wash.2d at 895, 726 P.2d 25. The existing law already provides for judges to be sensitive to mental health issues when considering whether to grant a waiver, Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774, but this does not translate into a heightened standard for waiver of counsel and pro se representation when there are mental health issues present. If we announced such a requirement, it would be a new rule. ¶ 26 We need not consider if such a rule is appropriate because even if adopted, Rhome cannot get the benefit of such a rule for the first time on a PRP. In Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (plurality opinion), the United States Supreme Court made it clear that new constitutional rules of criminal procedure generally will not be retroactively applied on collateral attack. There are two exceptions: (1) rules that place certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the State's power to prohibit and (2) rules that require observance of procedures that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. State v. Abrams, 163 Wash.2d 277, 290-91, 178 P.3d 1021 (2008) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060). ¶ 27 The first exception would not apply to a rule requiring a higher standard for a mentally ill defendant to waive counsel and proceed pro se, as such a rule would not decriminalize behavior for which the individual was punished. Nor would the rule fall into the second exception. The United States Supreme Court observed that `[t]his class of rules is extremely narrow,' and it is unlikely that one has yet emerged. In re Pers. Restraint Petition of Markel, 154 Wash.2d 262, 269-70, 111 P.3d 249 (2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004)). This narrow exception is reserved for `watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.' Id. (quoting Summerlin, 542 U.S. at 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519) (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 495, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (plurality opinion))). While issues surrounding the right to counsel and waiver of counsel are undoubtedly linked to the fundamental fairness of a proceeding, a rule such as the one proposed by Rhome, if adopted, would not `alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements' essential to the fairness of a proceeding. Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242, 110 S.Ct. 2822, 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 693, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971))). That a new procedural rule is `fundamental' in some abstract sense is not enough; the rule must be one `without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.' Summerlin, 542 U.S. at 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 313, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (plurality opinion)). We do not find the new rule Rhome advocates meets either of the exceptions that would allow him to benefit from a new rule on collateral attack. ¶ 28 This leaves only Rhome's argument that the trial court erred by accepting his waiver of counsel as knowing and intelligent. To summarize the applicable law: when a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial seeks waiver of counsel, the waiver must be not only voluntary, but knowing and intelligent. Hahn, 106 Wash.2d at 895, 726 P.2d 25; Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774. A trial court may consider a defendant's mental health history and status when competency has been questioned, even where the defendant has been found competent to stand trial. Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774; Edwards, 554 U.S. at 174, 128 S.Ct. 2379. ¶ 29 We review a trial court's decision on such a waiver for abuse of discretion. Hahn, 106 Wash.2d at 900, 726 P.2d 25. [4] A waiver determination is an ad hoc determination that rests on a judge's evaluation of a defendant's conduct, background, and experience. Id. A court abuses its discretion when an order is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wash.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). A discretionary decision is based `on untenable grounds' or made `for untenable reasons' if it rests on facts unsupported in the record or was reached by applying the wrong legal standard. State v. Rohrich, 149 Wash.2d 647, 654, 71 P.3d 638 (2003) (quoting State v. Rundquist, 79 Wash.App. 786, 793, 905 P.2d 922 (1995)). Moreover, a court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law. Fisons, 122 Wash.2d at 339 [858 P.2d 1054]. State v. Rafay, 167 Wash.2d 644, 655, 222 P.3d 86 (2009). ¶ 30 The record before us does not evidence any abuse of discretion. Judge Kessler, aware that Judge Canova had previously found Rhome competent to stand trial, twice considered Rhome's request to waive counsel and proceed pro se. At both hearings, the trial court engaged in a colloquy on the record, Judge Kessler discussed with Rhome the nature of the charges against him, of which Rhome evinced an understanding, VRP (Aug. 30, 2005) at 7-9, as well as the fact that Rhome would need to have some familiarity with the rules of evidence and superior court criminal rules. Id. at 8-9. He pressed Rhome on whether Rhome understood that he would be held to the same standards as an attorney with regard to making proper objections and admitting evidence. Id. at 9-11. Judge Kessler warned Rhome that he believed Rhome was making a bad decision. If I [Judge Kessler] were charged with a crime, whether it was a serious crime or not serious crime, I would have a lawyer, and I am a lawyer. Id. at 11-12. We cannot conclude that the trial court's ruling was unsupported by the record or based on an erroneous view of the law. ¶ 31 While there was no abuse of discretion here, it bears repeating that nothing precludes trial courts from inquiring further into a defendant's ability to waive counsel when mental health concerns are present. That is clear from Kolocotronis. 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774. A searching inquiry into a defendant's mental health status is different from an inquiry into a defendant's skill and judgment to act as his own lawyer. As Faretta instructs, trial courts cannot deny pro se status simply because a lay person lacks the training and experience of a lawyer. 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525. But trial courts may consider that a defendant's mental capacity will have serious and negative effects on the ability to conduct a defense. Skill is not the same as capacity. ¶ 32 Moreover, trial courts are also charged with protecting countervailing constitutional rights apart from self-representation. See Rafay, 167 Wash.2d at 654, 222 P.3d 86; Kolocotronis, 73 Wash.2d at 99, 436 P.2d 774 (noting that if the court determines that [the defendant] does not have the requisite mental competency to intelligently waive the services of counsel nor adequate mental competency to act as his own counsel, then his [fair trial and due process rights are] disregarded if the court permits him to so act in a criminal case). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision to accept a waiver of counsel in favor of pro se representation allows consideration of the impact such a waiver will have on countervailing rights. See Rafay, 167 Wash.2d at 654, 222 P.3d 86; Edwards, 554 U.S. at 177, 128 S.Ct. 2379. Although Judge Kessler could have expressly included a discussion of such concerns in his colloquy, the absence of such discussion does not make his decision to grant Rhome's waiver an abuse of discretion.