Court Opinion

ID: 9499318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:44:50.6671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:25.574340
License: Public Domain

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion because I agree that the trial court was required to make a significantly more detailed on-the-record inquiry into James’s reasons for proceeding without counsel and his understanding of the consequences of doing so. I write separately simply to note my disagreement with the lead opinion’s statement — which is the underpinning of its ultimate conclusion — that “[t]he record, and the evidentiary hearing held by Magistrate Judge Ovington, make it clear that James was not attempting to delay the trial unreasonably and was not engaging in dilatory tactics.”
Mr. Stewart was James’s third counsel. His first attorneys were retained, and at least one of them attempted to withdraw prior to trial because James refused to cooperate with them. Although this problem was resolved, James’s trial was de*645layed because he failed to appear on the day trial was to begin. The trial court revoked his bond; James was arrested; and the case proceeded to trial. James was convicted on one charge, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the others. James’s retained counsel then moved to withdraw because James was now indigent.
The trial court next appointed the county public defender to represent James, but that counsel moved to withdraw after several months because James refused to talk with him about the case. The trial court granted that motion, and Mr. Stewart was appointed.
In my view, the record does not “make it clear” that James was not engaging in dilatory tactics. Neither, however, does the record make it clear that he was in fact simply attempting to delay the trial and to engage in dilatory tactics. While I have no doubt that this is what James was up to, I agree with the lead opinion that it was incumbent upon the trial judge to do more than he did to ensure that James’s demand to proceed without counsel was knowing and voluntary.