Court Opinion

ID: 9767090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:09:05.666742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.410567
License: Public Domain

*209Allen, C.J.,
concurring. I agree that the conviction must be reversed and the matter remanded.
Defendant’s contentions on appeal are that the record does not support a finding that he was competent to enter a plea pursuant to V.R.Cr.E 11, that he was not properly advised of his rights during the Rule 11 proceeding and that he did not properly waive his right to counsel at the change of plea hearing.*
The court’s obligation under the rule is to determine that the defendant understands the nature of the charge, the penalties, the right to plead not guilty, the consequence of a guilty plea, the implications of the court’s refusal to accept a plea agreement and that the plea is voluntary. The defendant had been found to be competent to stand trial a week before the change of plea hearing. While the defendant suggests there were serious questions raised about his competency during those proceedings, he does not ask to have that determination reversed. The competency standard for pleading guilty is the same as the competency standard for standing trial. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396-99, 113 S. Ct. 2680, 2685-86 (1993). At the change of plea hearing the trial court’s task was to make certain that defendant understood the implications of his plea and that his decision was voluntary; not to hold another competency hearing.
Defendant does not seriously argue that he was not properly advised of his rights. A review of the record indicates that the court carefully reviewed them before accepting the plea. In re Hall, 143 Vt. 590, 596, 469 A.2d 756, 759 (1983) (rule does not require that the court read verbatim the rights enumerated under subdivision (c)).
The thrust of defendant’s challenge is that the record fails to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and with this, I agree. The trial court had a letter from the defendant requesting that appointed counsel “disembarks from the case.” The court attempted to determine whether defendant desired to proceed with or without counsel, but its efforts were fruitless and it is unclear from the record what defendant’s wishes were. The defendant had the Sixth Amendment right to the assis*210tance of counsel, but could waive that right only if he did so “knowingly and intelligently.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462-65 (1938). He also had a constitutionally protected right to represent himself. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832 (1975). The trial court, before proceeding with the Rule 11(c) and (d) inquiries, was obligated to resolve this issue, and the failure to do so was the error requiring reversal. Godinez, 509 U.S. at 400-01, 113 S. Ct. at 2687.

 Although defendant faded to properly preserve his claims for appeal, State v. Thompson, 162 Vt. 532, 650 A.2d 139 (1994), VR.A.E 3(b) requires this Court to review Pollard’s claims. VR.A.E 3(b) (“In any criminal case resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment, no notice of appeal shall be necessary. . . . The Supreme Court shall in each such case review the record in the interests of justice and pass upon any claim of error therein as if a notice of appeal had been filed, unless the defendant with the advice of counsel has waived such appeal in writing.”).