Court Opinion

ID: 9573475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:55:51.117074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:16.416632
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 84. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I join that portion of the majority opinion which affirms the judgments of conviction in this case. I write separately because I strongly disagree with the majority's conclusion that a circuit court has the authority to impose attorney fees for standby counsel as a condition of a defendant's probation. Majority op., part III D, ¶¶ 63-80. I therefore dissent from that portion of the opinion.
I. ¶ 85. During his continued initial appearance on June 19, 2001,1 defendant John Campbell (Campbell) appeared pro se, having filed a request to appear pro se. *140Campbell also filed a signed "Waiver of Right to Attorney" form.2 At the continued initial appearance, the trial court asked Campbell if he had ever studied evidence, civil procedure, or criminal procedure, to which Campbell responded that he had not, but noted that the defendant in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), had the same problem. The circuit court judge agreed that Campbell had a right to represent himself. The court then stated as follows:
I want to make sure that you have a fundamental understanding of the Rules of Procedure, because you have to follow them. And you have to select the jury. We have a jury trial: Make your strikes; ask the appropriate questions. You can't just get away with asking questions in a free-lance way and get in evidence people using attorneys do and following the rule would get in, and -
¶ 86. Campbell noted that because he was pro se, he did not "have the advantage of an appropriate counsel." The circuit court then asked if he wanted a "backup attorney." Campbell responded that "[a] backup attorney would be great if the court would allow that." The following colloquy then took place:
THE COURT: Well, I've done that in the past. Are you - I don't know if you've asked for an attorney. I don't know if you're indigent.
*141THE DEFENDANT: I am indigent, Your Honor. I'm a minister. We don't make a hundred dollars a week. And that's doing a couple of funerals in California....
THE COURT: Did you, did you fill out a form here that shows your indigency?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE DEFENDANT: The idea then would be to go pro se with counsel. Simply because there is a very, very specific way that you have to address questions.
THE COURT: I just had a trial that way. And, first of all, the defendant used the defense counsel and used their law books and their lawyer's ability to help them do the research, and handle the case themselves. So that's a possibility.
¶ 87. The circuit court engaged Campbell in a dialogue that appears to have discussed the indigency form filled out by Campbell. The court then determined that Campbell wanted to represent himself and stated, "I will appoint a court-appointed lawyer. ... I don't know, you might qualify for [a] Public Defender. I think he would - you should give the Public Defender a call." A public defender then responded, "[jludge, public defenders don't do backups." Following a discussion off the record, the circuit court appointed "a court-appointed lawyer[,]" subject to repayment.
*142¶ 88. According to the transcript, the circuit court never determined whether Campbell was indigent,3 never made a finding that Campbell freely, voluntarily, and understanding^ waived counsel, and never determined that Campbell was competent to represent himself at trial.4 See State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, ¶ 14, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). The circuit court order for standby representation, filed June 19, 2001, provides as follows:
WHEREAS, this court has determined that the interests of justice and efficient operation of the court require that [Campbell] be represented by standby counsel;
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that James Martin [] be, and is, appointed to represent the defendant as standby counsel .. .
¶ 89. There is no such thing as a "backup attorney." This court has already held that a defendant "has *143no constitutional right to be actively represented in the courtroom both by counsel and himself." Moore v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 285, 300, 265 N.W.2d 540 (1978). Counsel could either represent Campbell, or counsel could assist Campbell in representing himself. Counsel could not do both.
¶ 90. Here is the problem: if the court appointed standby counsel to "represent" Campbell, as stated in the order, then his constitutional right to represent himself has been interfered with. If, on the other hand, the court appointed counsel to act as "standby counsel" for Campbell, then Wis. Stat. § 973.06(1) precludes repayment for the cost of counsel.
II. ¶ 91. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution give a criminal defendant the right to conduct his or her own defense. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d at 203. That right "exists to affirm the accused's individual dignity and autonomy." McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 176-77 (1984). "The pro se defendant must be allowed to control the organization and content of his own defense, to make motions, to argue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at appropriate points in the trial." Id. at 174.
¶ 92. As the majority notes, when a defendant chooses to exercise his or her right to self-representation and relinquish the right to be represented by counsel, the circuit court, acting in its discretion, has the authority to appoint an attorney to act as standby counsel. Majority op., ¶ 64. Contrary to the majority's assertions, that appointment is for the purpose of assisting the court. Wiggins, 465 U.S. at 184; *144State v. Lehman, 137 Wis. 2d 65, 83, 403 N.W.2d 438 (1987). Compare majority op., ¶¶ 65-66. Such a decision must be based on a determination that the needs of the trial court, and not the defendant, would be best served by doing so. Lehman, 137 Wis. 2d at 77.
¶ 93. The United States Supreme Court has expressly recognized that standby counsel can have a very active role in the conduct of criminal proceedings when defendant and standby counsel disagree, as well as when the defendant embraces the actions of standby counsel. In Wiggins, the Court noted that during the trial outside the presence of the jury, "[o]n several occasions Wiggins expressly adopted standby counsel's initiatives.... On several other occasions Wiggins strongly opposed the initiatives of counsel." Wiggins, 465 U.S. at 180. Conflicts were resolved in favor of the defendant, thereby leaving him in control over his defense. Id. at 181.
¶ 94. Of more concern to the Wiggins Court was standby counsel's participation during the trial in the presence of the jury. Id. The Court recognized that the right of self-representation is not infringed when standby counsel assists the pro se defendant in overcoming procedural or evidentiary obstacles at trial, or helps to ensure the defendant's compliance with basic rules of courtroom protocol and procedure. Id. at 183. Accordingly, the court concluded as follows:
A defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not violated when a trial judge appoints standby counsel — even over the defendant's objection — to reheve the judge of the need to explain and enforce basic rules of courtroom protocol or to assist the defendant in overcoming routine obstacles that stand in the way of the defendant's achievement of his own clearly indicated goals.
Id. at 184.
*145¶ 95. The majority in this action construes Attorney Martin's role in this case as being "much closer to full-fledged defense counsel than passive observer." Majority op. at ¶ 66. The majority concludes that by welcoming court-appointed standby counsel and heavily using him throughout the proceedings, Attorney Martin became a defense attorney for Campbell. Id., ¶ 76. If the majority is correct, then Campbell may have been deprived of his right of self-representation. Campbell either represented himself, or he didn't. The majority cannot have it both ways.
¶ 96. If the circuit court appointed Attorney Martin to "represent" Campbell without telling him, then this court must explore a Wiggins analysis to determine whether Campbell was in control of his defense. If he was, then Attorney Martin truly acted as standby counsel. If, on the other hand, counsel took control over the defense, then Campbell has been deprived of his right of self-representation. Attorney Martin cannot fulfill both roles, and the circuit court did not (and could not) appoint Attorney Martin to act as co-counsel. Because I conclude that the role played by Attorney Martin was consistent with the role of standby counsel recognized in Wiggins, I therefore conclude that standby counsel here was just that, standby counsel. To conclude otherwise would require that the defendant receive a new trial, as a violation of the right of self-representation is not subject to the harmless error rule. Wiggins, 465 U.S. at 177 n.8.
HH HH HH
¶ 97. The majority correctly concludes that Wis. Stat. §§ 973.06(1) and 973.09(lg) must be read together to determine whether a circuit court has the authority *146to order Campbell to pay as a condition of probation the costs of standby counsel. Majority op., ¶¶ 67-70. The court of appeals has already held, and the majority agrees, as a general proposition, that the exclusive list for costs authorized in Wis. Stat. § 973.06(1) circumscribes the costs a circuit court may impose as a condition of probation. Id., ¶ 70 (citing State v. Amato, 126 Wis. 2d 212, 217-18, 376 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1985)). The reason for such a rule is expressly set forth by the statute: "Except as provided in s. 93.20,5 the costs, fees, and surcharges taxable against the defendant shall consist of the following items and no others[.]" Wis. Stat. § 973.06(1) (emphasis added). See also State v. Neave, 220 Wis. 2d 786, 790, 585 N.W.2d 169 (Ct. App. 1998). Thus, the decision on this issue hinges upon this court's interpretation of § 973.06(l)(e): "[attorney fees payable to the defense attorney by the county or the state."
¶ 98. The majority concludes that "the term 'defense attorney' in § 973.06 is broad enough to cover standby counsel in certain situations." Majority op., ¶. 72. I respectfully disagree. As previously noted, the decision to appoint standby counsel should be based on a determination that the needs of the trial court and not the defendant would be best served by doing so. Lehman, 137 Wis. 2d at 77. Indeed, that was done in this case. The circuit court appointed Attorney Martin for Campbell in "the interests of justice and efficient operation of the court[.]" The Lehman court used the term "assist" the defendant to describe the role of standby counsel, and used that term broadly. Id. at 79-80. As Wis. Stat. § 973.06(1)(e) provides for "attorney fees payable to the defense attorney[,]" "and no others[,]"6 no *147statutory provision exists that authorizes the payment of costs by the defendant for standby counsel appointed to assist the court by assisting the defendant.
¶ 99. The question of who pays for standby counsel has already been addressed and decided by this court. In Lehman, this court agreed that, with the exception of Wis. Stat. § 753.19,7 no other statutory provision provides for the payment of the fees for standby counsel. Id. at 83. That statute provides that "[t]he cost of operation of the circuit court for each county . . . except as otherwise provided, shall be paid by the county." Wis. Stat. § 753.19. This court reasoned that "the services rendered by the standby counsel are actually services to the court." Lehman, 137 Wis. 2d at 83. This court stated that since the "trial judge determined that the appointment of standby counsel was essential, . . . the resulting fees were a 'necessary cost of the operation of the court. ... '"Id. The court thus concluded that the duty of payment fell upon the county under Wis. Stat. § 753.19. Id.
¶ 100. For the reasons stated, Attorney Martin was not the defense attorney in this matter. As such, the circuit court lacks the authority to order Campbell to pay for the costs of standby counsel as a condition of probation. Other than Wis. Stat. § 753.19, no other statutory provision provides for the payment of the cost of standby counsel. Consequently, the circuit court erred in ordering Campbell to pay for Attorney Martin's services as a condition of probation.
*148¶ 101. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion dealing with costs.
¶ 102. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this concurring in part, dissenting in part opinion.

 The record does not contain any transcript of the earlier proceeding that was apparently adjourned.

 On the waiver form, Campbell indicated that he was a 48-year-old youth pastor with some college education, who understood that an attorney could be of assistance to him in regards to preparing a defense, presenting motions, or negotiating with the prosecutor. While he indicated that he did have questions that he would like to ask the court, he nevertheless signed the form on June 18, 2001, the day before the continued initial appearance.

 According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Campbell's 2001 income was less than half of the federal poverty guidelines for that year. 66 Federal Register 10695-10697 (February 16, 2001).

 The parties have not raised these issues. I mention them because it is not clear what the court meant when it ordered that Campbell be "represented by standby counsel." In the absence of a clear finding of waiver of the right to counsel or a determination of Campbell's competence to represent himself, was the circuit court appointing Attorney Martin to represent Campbell? If so, was Campbell deprived of his right to represent himself? Should the majority engage a Wiggins analysis to determine whether Campbell was truly in control of his defense? McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984). If, on the other hand, the circuit court appointed Attorney Martin to merely act as standby counsel, then how can the circuit court order the payment of standby counsel fees when the cost statute prohibits such an order? See Part III, infra.

 This section is not applicable.

 Wis. Stat. § 973.06(1).

 Wisconsin Stats. § 753.19 reads as follows:
The cost of operation of the circuit court for each county, except for the salaries of judges and court reporters provided to be paid by the state, and except for the cost assumed by the state under this chapter and chs. 40 and 230, and except as otherwise provided, shall be paid by the county.