Court Opinion

ID: 9776174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:21:22.75096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:59.472613
License: Public Domain

W. H.“Dub” Arnold, Chief Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the statement of the majority concluding that Mr. Bledsoe did not knowingly and intelligendy waive his right to counsel. The colloquy between the trial court and Mr. Bledsoe set forth on pages five and six of the majority opinion1 reveals that Mr. Bledsoe wanted to represent himself and that the trial judge took every precaution to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights. This court has stated that the determination in each case of whether a waiver is intelligendy made depends upon the particular facts and circumstances. Philyaw v. State, 288 Ark. 237, 704 S.W.2d 608 (1986). The record in this case is very clear that the defendant insisted that he represent himself and that he understood that he would have to follow the rules and procedures and orders of the court. Even then, the court would not allow the public defender to withdraw from the case. It is undisputed that the public defender did assist the defendant in the trial of the case. The defendant exercised his constitutional right to represent himself. What he did not like was the outcome of the trial. The courts have protected a defendant’s constitutional rights to represent himself, to have an appointed attorney, to hire his own attorney, to not have an appointed attorney represent him against his own will, and to represent himself with the aid of an appointed attorney. The one thing the court cannot guarantee is that the defendant will be satisfied with the results after he has made his choice. Judge Burnett did everything possible to protect Mr. Bledsoe’s constitutional rights; therefore, this case should be affirmed. Corbin, J., joins dissent.   Reporter’s note: The page references are to the Supreme Court’s slip opinion; see 337 Ark. at 407-09, 989 S.W.2d at 513.