Opinion ID: 2074695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Right to Counsel During Postconviction Relief Hearing

Text: Bryant argues that the hearing justice denied him an opportunity to prosecute the merits of his petition for postconviction relief by allowing him to proceed pro se. He maintains that the hearing justice should either have denied his request to proceed pro se or assigned standby counsel to assist him. Postconviction proceedings are civil in nature, and therefore an applicant seeking relief does not have a constitutional right to counsel. Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Ferrell v. A.T. Wall, 889 A.2d 177, 184 (R.I.2005). Nevertheless, a person's liberty interest is ultimately at stake, and the right to counsel in such proceedings arises by virtue of statute. See § 10-9.1-5. In the context of criminal cases, we have explained that a defendant may waive his right to counsel if the waiver is given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. State v. Holdsworth, 798 A.2d 917, 923 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Chabot, 682 A.2d 1377, 1379 (R.I.1996)). In determining the validity of the waiver, we `look[] to the totality of the circumstances.' Id. (quoting Chabot, 682 A.2d at 1379-80). Because a person may waive his constitutional right to counsel in a criminal case, we see no reason to question his right to waive his statutory right to counsel in a civil case. It is clear from the totality of the circumstances that Bryant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel in the postconviction-relief proceeding. The transcript from that hearing reveals the following colloquy between the hearing justice and Bryant: THE COURT: Are you representing yourself on this matter? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Have you consulted with an attorney toor you just don't want an attorney? MR. BRYANT: I don't want one sir, thank you. THE COURT: I'll say briefly that while the Supreme Court of the United States as well as the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island permits someone in your position to proceed without counsel, you may well find yourself better off with an attorney, however sour you may be about the attorney that you say was ineffective at your trial. We have a procedure here in Rhode Island where an attorney will be appointed if you don't have the funds to get your own attorney   . Having said that, do you want to take a shot at whether you want an attorney, or do you want to proceed on your own? MR. BRYANT: I would like to continue on my own. Thus, the hearing justice twice asked whether Bryant wanted an attorney, and he declined both times, insisting that he wished to proceed pro se, despite the justice's suggestion that it would be advisable to proceed with the assistance of counsel. Given the unequivocal rejection of counsel by Bryant, we see no error by the hearing justice in allowing him to proceed pro se.