Opinion ID: 1105683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: the trial court was in error in a constructive contempt hearing by violating appellant's right to counsel.

Text: ¶ 42. Although this issue is also rendered moot by the application of Rule 9.01, it merits discussion in order to provide future instruction to the trial courts. ¶ 43. At the beginning of the contempt proceeding, Judge Bogen inquired as to whether Terry and McIlwain were represented by counsel. McIlwain responded that both were represented by Kilpatrick. Judge Bogen then inquired as to whether Traci Evans was represented by counsel. THE COURT: Is your name Traci Evans? MS. EVANS: Yes, sir, it is. THE COURT: Do you have a lawyer? MS. EVANS: No, I do not. THE COURT: All right. State ready to proceed? ¶ 44. Judge Bogen proceeded with the contempt proceedings with full knowledge that Evans did not have an attorney and that the possible sentence to be imposed would be incarceration in the county jail. This was a blatant disregard for Evans' Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which has been enumerated to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). ¶ 45. The State erroneously responds to Evans' assignment of error by misreading her argument and Argersinger to address the government's duty to provide counsel to an indigent defendant. Id. at 26-37, 92 S.Ct. 2006. Evans is not contending on appeal she should have had counsel appointed for her. Judge Bogen at no time advised her that she had a legal right to seek the advice and be represented by legal counsel, or that her punishment might include incarceration. ¶ 46. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), the United States Supreme Court said: The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. (emphasis added). ¶ 47. Here the Court spoke in terms of all persons having a right to counsel, those who were educated and intelligent, as well as those who were ignorant and illiterate. Nothing is mentioned about the right to counsel being conditioned on economic status as the State argues. Again, Evans does not argue that she should have had counsel provided for her, but that she be informed of the charges and of her right to consult with an attorney. ¶ 48. The holding and rationale in Powell has relevance to any criminal trial, where an accused is deprived of her liberty. Argersinger, 407 U.S. at 32, 92 S.Ct. 2006. One charged with an offense against the criminal laws of a state has a right to effective assistance of counsel in making his or her defense as secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837 (Miss.1983) (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963)). The right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is a fundamental right. Vielee v. State, 653 So.2d 920, 922 (Miss.1995) (citing Argersinger, 407 U.S. at 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006.) ¶ 49. Fundamental rights are guaranteed to all persons, without regard of race, color, creed, religion or socio/economic status because of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The State responds by claiming the court's statement, Do you have a lawyer? should have been taken by any reasonably intelligent person to mean that she was entitled to counsel if she desired representation. This argument is without merit and shows a blatant disregard for the United States Constitution and over 60 years of interpretations of that sacred document by the United States Supreme Court and this Court. To say that a reasonably intelligent person would know they needed a lawyer goes completely against the decision of the United States Supreme Court. Powell, 287 U.S. at 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55. ¶ 50. Judge Bogen should have informed Evans of her right to seek the advice of an attorney before proceeding with the contempt proceeding. The right to effective assistance of counsel, like any other constitutional right, may be waived. Read, 430 So.2d at 838 (citing Matthews v. State, 394 So.2d 304, 309 (Miss.1981)). But before there can be a waiver, the defendant must be given a meaningful and realistic opportunity to assert the right. Id. If he is given that opportunity and he intelligently and voluntarily declines to assert the right, it is then waived. Id. The record is void of any explanation by the trial judge to Evans as to the ramifications of the charges against her and the possible sentence to be imposed if she were found guilty of the constructive contempt charges. Therefore, Evans was deprived of her opportunity to assert her right to counsel and could not make an intelligent and voluntary waiver of that right. ¶ 51. Although this issue is moot, the right to counsel is a fundamental right. The trial courts should exercise due diligence to ensure that all parties are informed of this right before a proceeding continues.