Court Opinion

ID: 9451323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:13:55.853293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:39.993491
License: Public Domain

MARIS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I regret that I am not able to concur with the opinion and judgment of the court. However, I think that the district court was justified in finding as it did that Bland was intentionally representing himself in connection with the post conviction proceedings following his second trial and that there was an intelligent and understanding waiver of counsel on his part insofar as those proceedings were concerned.
I take into account the fact that counsel had been appointed for Bland in con*17nection with the prosecution of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis following his first conviction and that counsel had likewise been appointed to defend him at his second trial. It is inconceivable to me, in light of this recent experience of his, that he did not know that he had a right, upon request to the court, to the appointment of counsel in these post trial proceedings. Nonetheless, in his letters to the State trial judge following his conviction which are quoted in the opinion of the court he made no request for the appointment of counsel although he expressly reported to the court the withdrawal of his previously court appointed counsel and although he asked for other assistance, including a pre-trial transcript, exemption from the payment of legal fees, and the affixing of a Notary’s seal to his papers. I cannot read his asking for “the same rights as one who was financially able to pay all the legal fees” as such a request.
On this record I agree with the district court that Bland cannot now be heard to assert that he was denied the appointment of counsel. A defendant accused of crime must be afforded every constitutional right. However, the indefinite prolongation of the proceedings is not one of those rights. There comes, a time when the proceedings against a defendant accused of crime must terminate. In the case of Bland I think that time is now.
I would affirm the denial of the writ of habeas corpus by the district court.