Court Opinion

ID: 9849326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:38:25.563102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:17.198482
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(dissenting in part). While I agree with that portion of the majority opinion upholding the trial court’s refusal to permit the defendant to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, I must dissent from that portion that upholds the trial court’s refusal to provide publicly financed counsel at defendant’s sentencing.
Although the defendant intelligently waived his right to counsel at the earlier stages, on March 8, 1966, he appeared in court for sentencing and stated:
“I want to withdraw my plea of guilty ....

"...

“I had some other information and I want the court to appoint me a lawyer.”
By this language the defendant alerted the trial court that he was equivocating on his waiver of the right to counsel. The least the trial court should do at that point is clarify whether defendant wishes counsel to represent him at the sentencing. Sentencing is a most important stage in the criminal proceedings and the defendant is entitled to counsel at that time unless he has clearly waived that right. This, in my opinion, Mathis did not do.
I have been authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Hallows and Mr. Justice Heffernan join in this opinion.