Court Opinion

ID: 9705735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:18:24.101556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:14.490316
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result achieved by the majority opinion, but I write separately to express my concern about reconciling Hill v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 221 (Ky.2004), with our reasoning today.
Partin wished to have an active role in his defense. A defendant has a state and federal constitutional right to proceed without a lawyer. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Ky. Const. § 11. Hill, swpra, held that the trial court was required under the Kentucky Constitution § 11 to grant the defendant’s request to serve as co-counsel, where he sought a limited waiver of counsel in order to examine and cross-examine certain witnesses, by himself, in prosecution for engaging in organized crime. A majority of this Court held in Hill that the trial court has “Faretta, supra, duties” when a defendant makes a limited waiver of counsel. These include: (1) holding a hearing in which the defendant testifies on the question of whether the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; (2) warning the defendant of the hazards arising from and the benefits relinquished by waiving counsel; and (3) making a finding that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Furthermore, it was held that this is a structural issue and the waiver is ineffective without all the elements.
*33At the hearing to appoint co-counsel, defense counsel stated that Partin insisted on having an active role. The trial judge warned Partin that his assigned attorney was very familiar with trial strategies and competent in defense work and that he would be losing her expertise in preparing a trial for him. Partin argued on his own behalf that he felt no one else had as much interest in his case as did he. Thus, he desired to “drive the car” himself. He made this point several times. Even his opening argument to the jury began with Partin explaining to the jury that he felt his own life was in the balance and, therefore, he must have a part in making his own defense.
The trial judge warned Partin about the dangers and explained that there were rules to be followed in court. Partin explained to the court that he had been studying the rules of court and rules of evidence. He reaffirmed many times that he felt best situated to present the facts of his case and manage the interrogation of witnesses because he had conducted his own investigations. Partin said he wanted the assistance of counsel for matters of following procedure, handling voir dire, and for following the trial process itself.
The prosecutor questioned the fairness to its case of allowing Partin to proceed as co-counsel. He said he feared that if Par-tin perceived the case was not going favorably, he would break rules knowingly to create a mistrial. The prosecutor explained that contempt for 30 days was no deterrent against life imprisonment. In fact, Partin broke several admonishments from the trial judge, eventually being held in contempt of court with a 30-day sentence.
Contrary to the requirements framed by the majority in Hill, the record here lacks a direct finding by the trial judge that Partin’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Therefore, I must reluctantly view the reasoning in this case to appear to be at variance with Hill. Thus, I concur in result only.