Court Opinion

ID: 9558952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:25.241189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:40.686421
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring specially.
The Court’s opinion fully and fairly disposes of the contentions which Watkins may have raised on his pro se appeal. The fact that Watkins’ appeal was taken pro se in itself raises an issue which the Court, sua sponte, should at least consider and comment upon.
As our opinion shows, Watkins had counsel when he entered his guilty plea and when he was sentenced. Eighteen months later he had counsel when he initiated his post-conviction relief proceeding. And, as our opinion shows, his counsel did not respond to the trial court’s notice of intent to summarily dismiss-based upon that court’s well stated reasons and grounds for doing so. At that point in time, so far as the appeal record shows, Watkins’ counsel apparently went dormant. The trial court allowed a considerable amount of time beyond the 20 day notice, and nothing appears to have been filed on Watkins’ behalf, nor was the court notified that there would be no filing. In time, pursuant to the notice, the post-conviction proceeding was dismissed.
Watkins then, acting on his own, initiated an appeal, apparently aided by another inmate who titled himself as a Paralegal Law Clerk. On filing his notice of appeal Watkins petitioned for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, setting forth his incarceration and indigency, and declaring that “Because of my poverty, I am unable to ... employ an attorney.”
At that point there was either a shortcoming in the procedures of this Court or of the trial court. I.C. § 19-853(b), § 19-4904 and § 19-4909 clearly require that Watkins should have been informed of his right to counsel and of the right of a needy person to be represented by an attorney at public expense. Not so clear as applied to an appeal from a post-conviction proceeding is that portion of the statute placing the burden of so advising the indigent defendant on “the presiding officer.” For certain, however, Watkins was not advised as required.
Under this state of the record, although I concur in the opinion of the Court, I cannot help but conclude that the proceedings we review and affirm are not with prejudice to any further proceedings which Watkins may undertake.