Court Opinion

ID: 9642251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:52:59.078206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.179375
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Justice,
dissenting:
I regret that I cannot agree with the Court’s decision reversing the judgment of the Superior Court. In his opinion the Chief Justice has noted the difficult issues which the appeal presents, but my conclusion as to those issues is basically different from that of the majority.
As I understand the majority’s view, the Trial Judge was in error because he abused his discretion on the counsel issue. Specifically, the Court finds prejudicial error in the failure to keep retained counsel or to appoint a different attorney as “standby counsel” for defendant.
I have difficulty agreeing with that conclusion for several reasons: First, standby counsel is sometimes appointed to aid a self-represented accused if and when he requests help. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 n. 46, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). No such request was made by Mr. Hicks. Indeed, Mr. Hicks made it clear that he did not want Mr. Kennedy (the attorney whom he had retained) as his counsel and he said that to the Trial Judge on at least three occasions.1 In view of defendant’s repeated and emphatic rejection of Mr. Kennedy as his counsel, it is difficult to understand how the Trial Judge can be faulted for failing to keep Mr. Kennedy in the case on a standby basis. Indeed, if the . Trial Judge had done so, that would have created a basis for attacking a conviction, i. e., ignoring defendant’s repeated and specific objections and compelling him to accept Mr. Kennedy as his attorney.
It seems to me that, under the Court’s thesis, the only reasonable option available to the Trial Judge was to appoint another attorney and, necessarily, that attorney would have been a stranger to the case. While the Court’s opinion limits the participation of such an appointed attorney to a “standby” status, it does not define that term nor suggest what responsibility such an attorney would have had. But “standing by” a defendant conducting his own case is one thing; acting as effective counsel for a defendant who is “downstairs” is an entirely different role.
As to waiver, I agree that defendant did not waive his right to counsel in so many words. But actions speak louder than words and, as I read the transcript, Mr. Hicks knew precisely what he was doing: during the trial he discharged the attorney whom he had retained, he wanted another attorney of his own choice and, after he was denied a continuance so that he could attempt to have that attorney represent him, he elected to proceed without an attorney; thereafter he renewed the attempt to get a different attorney and when that failed he *383chose to leave the courtroom;2 in a prior colloquy the Trial Judge had told him,
“Well, we’re going to have this trial.... [y]ou have the right to waive your presence, if you want to, if you want to leave. We’re going to try your case. If you want to leave the courtroom and waive your right to be present, you can do that. It’s entirely up to you. Or you can stay here and participate in the trial.”
I agree that the case presents hard issues for an appellate court, as it did for the Trial Judge. But those issues were entirely of defendant’s own doing. He provoked the counsel issue in the courtroom and then walked out of it. Although the Court agrees that the Trial Judge properly denied Mr. Hicks’ request for a continuance (so that he could seek new counsel), the irony is that when he took a walk, he laid the foundation not merely for a continuance but for an entire new trial.
Respectfully, I dissent from the Court’s ruling.

. The record shows that, as to Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hicks said to the Trial Judge:
“I do not want him to stay on my case.”
# s)e ‡ ‡ ‡
“I don’t want this man to represent me no more.”
* * * * *
“... I don’t want this man on my case no more.”

. We are not here concerned with a Criminal Rule 43 situation in which a defendant’s presence is required at arraignment, at the opening of trial and at sentencing.