Court Opinion

ID: 9678829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:33:37.850829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.313952
License: Public Domain

WAHL, Justice
(dissenting).
Because I conclude that the record before us does not affirmatively reveal a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, I respectfully dissent.
A misdemeanor defendant must be informed of his right to counsel, Minn.R. *667Crim.P. 5.01(b) and 15.02, and must make a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right on the record before pleading guilty. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The trial court did not make an adequate effort here to determine whether appellant understood that he had a right to counsel, nor did it specifically inquire whether appellant waived that right. The court instead generally inquired whether defendant waived his “constitutional rights.”
The group of defendants here, advised en masse of their constitutional rights under Minn.R.Crim.P. 15.03, subd. 1, contained both persons charged with noncriminal petty misdemeanors and those charged with criminal misdemeanors. Under these circumstances, the trial court’s explanation of the differing rights available to the two types of charges could likely cause confusion. The court should have thereafter individually advised appellant whether the charge facing him was a petty misdemeanor or a misdemeanor and should have specifically inquired whether appellant waived the right to counsel. The majority opinion concedes that this procedure should be followed but does not require such in this case. Because I perceive no reason to except this case from the requirement of a record showing a valid waiver of the right to counsel, I would reverse the conviction.