Document: 541 U.S. 77 IOWAv.TOVAR. No. 02-1541. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 21, 2004. Decided March 8, At respondent Tovar's November 1996 arraignment for operating a motor vehicle under the influence alcohol (OWI), in response to trial court's questions, Tovar affirmed that he wanted represent himself and plead guilty. Conducting guilty plea colloquy required by Iowa Rules Criminal Procedure, court explained that, if pleaded not guilty, would be entitled speedy public jury where have right counsel who could help him select jury, question cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, make arguments on his behalf. By pleading cautioned, give up rights at represented counsel, remain silent, presumption innocence, subpoena witnesses compel their testimony. The then informed maximum minimum penalties an OWI conviction, before accepting plea, had assure itself was fact charged offense. To end, two elements charge: defendant must (1) operated (2) while intoxicated. confirmed, first, date question, and, second, did dispute result intoxilyzer test showing blood level exceeded legal limit nearly twice over. accepted hearing next month, imposed sentence days jail fine. In 1998, again with OWI, this time as second offense, aggravated misdemeanor law. Represented proceeding, 2000, third-offense class "D" felony Again charge. Counsel moved preclude use first (1996) conviction enhance 2000 offense from felony. maintained waiver invalid—not fully knowing, intelligent, voluntary—because never made aware dangers disadvantages self-representation. denied motion, found sentenced Appeals affirmed, but reversed remanded entry judgment without consideration conviction. Holding preceding acceptance been constitutionally inadequate, Iowa's high ruled, here issue, warnings given are essential "knowing intelligent" Sixth Amendment stage: advised specifically waiving counsel's assistance deciding whether entails risk viable defense will overlooked deprives opportunity obtain independent opinion whether, facts applicable law, it is wise Held: Neither warning ordered mandated Amendment. constitutional requirement satisfied when informs accused nature charges against him, counseled regarding range allowable punishments attendant upon plea. Pp. 87-94. (a) secures facing incarceration all "critical stages" criminal process, see, e. g., Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159, 170, including hearing, White Maryland, 373 59, 60 (per curiam). Because received two-day prison term both stage elected contest Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 34, 37. Although may choose forgo representation, any voluntary, see Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464. information possess order intelligent election depends case-specific factors, education or sophistication, complex easily grasped charge, proceeding. See ibid. pitfalls proceeding uncounseled "rigorous[ly]" conveyed, Patterson Illinois, 487 285, 298; Faretta California, 422 806, 835, less searching formal suffice earlier stages S., 299. Patterson, described pragmatic approach right-to-counsel waivers, one asks "what purposes lawyer can serve particular proceedings what [counsel] provide stage." Id., 298. Less rigorous pretrial because, stage, "the full self-representation . substantial more obvious than they trial." 87-90. (b) does admonitions Court. "[T]he law ordinarily considers sufficiently understands how likely apply general circumstances ." States Ruiz, 536 622, 629. Even lacked complete appreciation consequences flowing waiver, State nevertheless prevail shows provided minimum. 294. gave insufficient Court's guiding decisions. prescribing scripted holding them necessary every instance, observations waive intelligently depend each case, Johnson, Moreover, acknowledges, collateral attack defendant's burden prove competently counsel. has claimed understand charge punishment crime prior He "articulate[d] precision" additional provided, simplicity Nor assert unaware arraignment. Before Court, suggests only mistaken belief trial, was, instead, going Given surrounding [this] case," 464, far clear kind enlightened decision seek himself. case so straightforward, issue might confuse mislead inform i. e., misconstrued convey meritorious exists lesser neither prospect realistic one. If delays vain hope uncover tenable basis contesting reducing prompt disposition impeded, resources either (if indigent) financially ineligible appointed counsel) wasted. free adopt statute, rule, guides deem useful, Federal Constitution require controversy. 90-94. 656 N. W. 2d 112, remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered unanimous 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. 2 Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General Iowa, argued cause petitioner. With briefs were Douglas R. Marek, Deputy General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant General. 3 Malcolm L. Stewart amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor Olson, Wray, Dreeben. 4 Theresa Wilson, Appellate Defender, filed respondent.* 5 JUSTICE GINSBURG 6 safeguards faces critical process. 170 (1985); Wade, 388 218, 224 (1967). ranks stage" which adheres. 34 (1972); (1963) Waiver process generally, "knowing, ac[t] done sufficient awareness relevant circumstances." Brady States, 397 742, 748 (1970). This concerns extent judge, defendant, elaborate representation. 7 Beyond affording consult assisted court, specifically: advise "waiving [entails] overlooked"; "admonis[h]" "that attorney lose guilty"? 121 (Iowa 2003). held Ibid. 8 We hold 9 * On 2, 1996, Felipe Edgardo Tovar, 21-year-old college student, arrested Ames, (OWI). Code § 321J.2 (1995).1 An administered night arrest showed 0.194. App. 24. arresting officer Miranda Arizona, 384 436 (1966). signed form stating waived those agreed answer questions. Univ. Dept. Public Safety, Supplemental Report (Nov. 1996), Lodging Petitioner; Rights Warnings Petitioner. 10 Some hours after arrest, appeared judge District Story County. indicated initial appearance application court-appointed Initial Appearance OWCR 23989 also marked form's checklist "informed receive[d] copy Complaint." Arraignment set 18, 1996. interim, released jail. 11 18 arraignment,2 inquiries began: "Mr. appears I Mr. you attorney. Did want yourself today's hearing?" 8-9. replied: "Yes, sir." 9. soon asked: "[H]ow wish plead?" answered: "Guilty." promised anything threatened way induce 13-14. 12 Rule Crim. Proc. (1992),3 15, attorney, "could [Tovar] State's any, [his] behalf, behalf," id., 16. "not [would Tovar] [of him], [he would] further entered relinquish silent 16-19. 13 Turning charged, carried penalty year $1,000 fine, $500 20. understood exposure penalties. 21-22. elements: Iowa; so, 23. confirmed driving apprehended results police night, 23-24. 14 After colloquy, asked still wished did. 27-28. observing there "a factual basis" it, "voluntarily, understanding rights, [and] [pleading guilty]." 28. 15 December 30, sentencing charge4 simultaneously, subsequent suspended license. 45-46; 321J.21 (1995).5 Noting attendance inquired: take some hire you?" 46.6 replied engaged essentially same suspension previous month. 48-51. counts: For plus surcharge costs; $250 costs. 55. 16 16, convicted time. Record 60; Pet. Cert. 24, n. 1. 17 14, third (1999), additionally license barred, 321.561. classifies first-offense serious second-offense misdemeanor. §§321J.2(2)(a)-(b). Third-offense offenses thereafter, rank felonies. 321J.2(2)(c). charges. 2001, through motion adjudication points;7 urged used 3-5.8 Significantly, allege hearing. Instead, invalid — "full voluntary" because "was self-representation." 3-4. 19 May explaining: "Where readily laypersons unduly severe, duty inquiry [the] willingness proceed face such awareness." 36-37 (brackets original). barred. 33. Four months adjudication, sentenced. 180-day term, 30 suspended, three years probation, $2,500 fine surcharges 70-71. 30-day run concurrently sentence, 71. 20 23-30, 4-to-3 vote, 112 (2003). highest acknowledged pro se different [therefore] these different." 119. nonetheless instructed dispositively: 21 "[A] chooses usefulness knowing [T]he [must] generally defenses known danger overlooked. should admonished addition, ensure punishments." 121.9 22 granted certiorari, 539 987 (2003), view division requirements imposes compare, Akins, 276 F. 3d 1141, 1146-1147 (CA9 2002), Cashman, 491 462, 465-466 (S. D. 1992), we now reverse II 23 See, U.S., 170; 224. A qualifies 60. 24 person crime, however, While "does force defendant," Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 279 (1942), 464 (1938). contends insufficiently informed, therefore invalid. particular, asserts value, attorney's advice entering Brief Respondent 15.10 25 "knows doing choice eyes open." Adams, 279. not, prescribed formula script read states elects election, our decisions indicate, 26 As said allowed se, warned hazards ahead. 806 (1975), instructive. resisted aid, preferring recognizing right, cautioned: "Although need skill experience self-representation, record establish knows 835 (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Later, 285 (1988), elaborated self-representation" referred. "[A]t trial," observed, "counsel even most gifted layman adhere rules procedure comprehend subtleties voir dire, examine effectively ., object improper prosecution much more." 299, 13. said, conveyed. clarified, suffice. 28 concerned postindictment questioning prosecutor. held, (1966), adequately Fifth well. 293. warnings, during questioning. "ultimate adverse consequence" making admissions, statements ensuing added, "also sufficed let [the defendant] know `do him,'" namely, refrain damaging defense. 29 describes "pragmatic question," stage," "to determine scope type procedures recognized." pretrial, explained, "less important" 299 (citation internal maintains like adequate suffices voluntary. Petitioner 20; Tr. Oral Arg. 3. according State, "makes plain role challenge sentence," conveys utility 25. other hand, defends precise instructions supra, 86-87, 15. 31 resolve endorse position nothing needed safeguard Preliminarily, note things case. appearance, 82, declined offer "time attorney" sentencing, open request withdrawal 84, 4. Further, alerted (acknowledging "retained assist" "work[ing] issues guilt sentencing"). Indeed, assume entitlement aid or, least, pretermitted issue. 2d, 117. Accordingly, presents narrower question: "Does rigid detailed admonishment risks overlooking defense?" 32 Training turn to, reiterate, language employed announcing thought required: overlooked," 121; "[t]he guilty," receive advice, sole us compels controversy.11 not. 33 recently reversing lower determination voluntary: though specific invoking it." 629 (2002) (emphasis similarly observed Patterson: "If defeat minimum." 294 note, "depend, 464; 88. Watts 257 70, 71 1977); 5, 26-27. light, 294; 83. "may merely guilty." added).12 35 suggests, him: declared mandatory veiled suggestion Amicus Curiae 9, 28-29; 20-21. 36 finally, useful. Alaska 39(a) (2003); Fla. 3.111(d) Md. Ct. 4-215 (2002); Minn. 5.02 Pa. 121, comment Constitution. 37 38 reasons stated, reversed, inconsistent opinion. 39 It ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Colorado et al. Ken Salazar, Colorado, Alan Gilbert, John Seidel, Gene C. Schaerr, Robert Klinck, Christopher Morano, Chief Connecticut, Attorneys respective follows: Bill Pryor Alabama, Gregg Renkes Alaska, Lockyer Charles Crist Florida, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden Idaho, Lisa Madigan Steve Carter Indiana, Phill Kline Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub Louisiana, Steven Rowe Maine, Reilly Massachusetts, Michael Moore Mississippi, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Mike McGrath Montana, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Patricia A. Madrid New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Henry McMaster South Carolina, E. Long Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, William H. Sorrell Vermont, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., West Patrick Crank Wyoming; National Association Stephanos Bibas James Polley IV. amici affirmance Defense Lawyers Duke Kemler; Legal Aid & Defender Andrea Lyon, Emily Hughes, Greenberg, Rigg. "A commits intoxicated operates state following conditions:a. alcoholic beverage b. having concentration .10 321J.2(1) (1995). along four individuals offenses. 6-10. presiding proposed conduct five cases jointly, course actionId., 11. since renumbered 2.8 substitute 8(2)(a) (1992) appear arraignment, drove courthouse despite license; en route home. 50, 53 Prior asking noted applied dependent parentsId., 46. absence sentencing. 10(2) ("Any defense, objection, capable raised motion.");State Wilt, 333 457, 460 1983) (approving motions points Procedure material undisputed). conceded 1998 enhancement purposes. dissenting justices criticized majority's "rigid" out line inPatterson 298 (1988). 122. They addition concerning relinquishes, "made penal befall went forward asamicus reads Scott 440 367 (1979), defective prosecution, although warranting vacation imprisonment, affords no ground disturbing underlying accordingly regardless validity waiver. 11, obtained effective cannot do address advances premise. 29, 12. 121. parties 8-9, hardly lend support have" believed. alsoid., 46 (court's "want[ed] attorney"); ("[a]t judgment," substitution plea).

Category: 0