Court Opinion

ID: 9766784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:59:00.136473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:26.118917
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
I would reverse and remand, and sustain defendant’s motion, because things were done in too much of a hurry for the assistance which counsel could have given to be effective. The best proof of this is what actually happened: appointed counsel, who had practiced in the circuit 35 years, evidently believed the jury would be more lenient with defendant than the judge, because he recommended a jury trial. Counsel also told defendant that the judge said it would be rough. Defendant, however, did not follow counsel’s advice. Why ? There is no rational explanation to be drawn from the facts stated in the majority opinion, other than failure on the part of defendant to comprehend the situation because of the rush. There is no indication counsel took or had time to explain to defendant why counsel was of the opinion the jury would be better for him, although counsel was in far the superior position to evaluate defendant’s chances. Defendant was entitled to an expression from his experienced and jury-wise counsel as to what punishment, in his best judgment, the jury would assess and counsel’s reasons for thinking so.1 For example, this is what appointed counsel did with his client in Wilson v. State, Mo., 459 S.W.2d 298, where we rejected a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In the case before us, defendant was simply choosing in the dark, and had to do so in a hurry.
Additionally, this case is a good illustration of how the practice of appointing counsel and taking a guilty plea, all in a short time, actually saves no time at all. Short periods of time such as we have here — from 5 to 10 minutes or perhaps 15 to 30 minutes at the most, between appointment and guilty plea — are the most fertile possible soil for post-conviction attacks. The inevitable sequela of proceeding as the trial court did is a post-conviction motion, which requires the time of the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and the time of the prosecutor and of appointed counsel, followed by an appeal and further expenditure of time and money by the state and by appointed counsel, followed by still another appellate opinion, and then perhaps by a new trial.

. The Standards relating to The Prosecution Function and the Defense Function, recommended by the Advisory Committee on the Prosecution and Defense Functions, American Bar Association, Sec. 5.1, Advising the defendant, state as follows: “ (a) After informing himself fully on the facts and the law, the lawyer should advise the accused with complete candor concerning all aspects of the case, including his candid estimate of the probable outcome.”