Court Opinion

ID: 9559235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:24:50.361908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:09.765601
License: Public Domain

*228McCLINTOCK, Justice,
dissenting, with whom ROSE, Justice, concurs.
I first ask: Why do the constitution of the United States and our own state constitution guarantee the right of defendants to be assisted by counsel? Why do our laws and court decisions assure a needy defendant the same assistance as his more affluent neighbor? The common law assured the presence of counsel in civil cases but did not require it in felony cases,1 but this principle was almost universally rejected by our colonies as well as the future states.
“ * * * [T]o the credit of her American colonies, let it be said that so oppressive a doctrine had never obtained a foothold here.” Holáen v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 386, 18 S.Ct. 383, 386, 42 L.Ed. 780 (1898).
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527 (1932), concerned with a trial which clearly came within the description of a “mockery and farce,” a term to which I shall again refer, points out that even an intelligent and educated layman has little or no skill in the science of law; he is unfamiliar with the legal processes and
“ * * * requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.”
If, however, the defendant is to be assisted by counsel who knows little or nothing about the case, the presence of such attorney leaves the defendant in exactly that same danger. It therefore follows and the decisions so state that the guaranty of counsel means effective assistance.2 As said in Goforth v. United States, 314 F.2d 868,871 (lOCir. 1963),3
“This constitutional guaranty means effective assistance as distinguished from bad faith, sham, mere pretense or want of opportunity for conference and preparation." (Emphasis added)
Suppose that in this criminal case the defendant had been able to retain counsel of his own choosing, paid an acceptable retainer, and demonstrated his ability to pay the usual and proper fees of counsel in such a case. The retainer had been effected three months before the date set for and known by the attorney as the trial date. During those three months the attorney has only the most casual conversation with his client; does not investigate the facts; does not interview witnesses, both those indicated for the prosecution and those who might appear in behalf of his client; makes no examination of the law; and on the day before the trial is to begin makes such brief and sketchy preparation as he can in the short time left. Would any district judge or juátice of this court consider that such conduct was anything but censurable? And why? Because by such lack of attention to his case the attorney has denied to his client the very thing for which he has been retained : the application of his education, skill, and knowledge as an attorney to the preparation and presentation of whatever defense the client had in order that at the trial all facts germane to that defense will be developed and intelligently and understandably presented to the jury under proper instructions as to the law from the trial judge. Yet by our decision this defendant has been condemned to representation by just such illy prepared counsel, not because of that counsel’s general *229incompetence or lack of attention to his obligations as a lawyer, but because of strictures upon his preparation which I think were unnecessary and unwise.
Upon the oral argument of this case I made the observation that a more experienced lawyer, less in awe of the power and authority of the Bench, might have respectfully but properly declined to accept the appointment upon the mandate that he would immediately proceed to trial. Leaders of the Bar of this state have been known to file affidavits of inability properly to represent indigent clients seeking counsel, truthfully professing a lack of knowledge and familiarity with such proceedings although at the same time equally truthfully holding themselves out to the public as competent trial attorneys in the civil field and successfully participating in such litigation. I ask why they would do this, and answer that it is because they know that without time for discussion with the client, interviews with witnesses both hostile and friendly, investigation at the scene of the alleged crime, examination of the record of the preliminary hearing, reading pertinent law, they simply are not in a position capably to act in the defendant’s behalf. How often is the attorney admonished not to cross-examine unless he knows what the answer will be? Preparation is the key word used by all the writers on the subject of trial technique.4
I therefore take the position that there can be no effective assistance without effective preparation, and denial of the continuance and opportunity for preparation under the circumstances of this case constitutes a denial of effective counsel. State v. McWilliams, 103 Ariz. 500, 446 P. 2d 229, 230 (1968) cites both Powell, supra, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) as guaranteeing effective counsel, and continues:
“ * * * Such a constitutional right necessarily includes the allowance to counsel of reasonable time to prepare his defense. We discussed this issue in Stirling v. State, 38 Ariz. 120, 123, 297 P. 871,872 (1931):
“ ‘His right to have counsel, and to have his counsel prepare his case for trial * * * is a substantial right, and to deny his counsel sufficient time in which to prepare his case is also the denial of a substantial right; and, under such circumstances, to have counsel appointed to represent him would be a meaningless formality and the granting of a barren right.’ (Emphasis supplied.)”
While I believe there was a denial of a constitutional right in the case at Bar, I do not think that we mus.t go that far. The question is raised on appeal and we need go no further than to hold that the denial of the continuance was reversibly erroneous.
I agree with the statement in Goforth, supra, and other federal cases that the question whether the defendant has had the effective assistance of counsel is not to be judged by the outcome of the trial. But I cannot accede to a view that the claim of lack of effective counsel is to be sustained only if it can be shown that the attorney has been so incompetent as to render the trial a mockery and a farce. Competency in the sense of ability is one thing. But competency in the sense of application of that ability to the particular case in such a way as to present all facets of his client’s defense is something else. Participation in trial without preparation does not lessen the general ability of the attorney but it materially weakens his competency in that particular case and may well result in a trial that is a meaningless charade. Concern with the court’s docket is to be commended, but if my views of the importance thereof differ from those expressed in the federal cases cited in the majority opinion, then I must say that we should interfere with that docket rather than deny a de*230fendant the services of a reasonably skilled and reasonably prepared attorney.
I am not sure that I am at complete variance with the authorities cited by the majority. Goforth, cited by my Brother Guthrie as most helpful in the disposition of the case at Bar, may be philosophically in tune with the majority's disinclination to give proper assistance to one who has been dilatory in his efforts to obtain counsel, either retained or appointed, but I think that it is materially different from our case. In the first place, the attorney who had so little time for preparation did not request for continuance. This omission was deliberate and after consultation with his client and advice to him that he could ask for such continuance, but the advice was rejected because his client wanted to “get it over with.” We therefore have all the elements of an express and knowing waiver. Moreover, the fact that this was a collateral attack upon the conviction, made some time after the time for appeal had expired, was a material element in the case as wdl as in Frand v. United States, 301 F.2d 102, 103 (10 Cir. 1962), quotation from which is included in Goforth. It seems to me that there is good reason for taking a harder line in the case of collateral attack than in a case where the request for continuance is promptly made upon appointment of the attorney and error is then urged on appeal from the conviction.5
This defendant was given short opportunity to retain counsel of his own choosing. He was carefully and meticulously advised of such right and furthermore that counsel would be employed for him by the state if he did not have the funds. He apparently persisted in his thought that he could obtain counsel and he did advise the court that he did not want counsel appointed. This attitude continued up to virtually the time of trial. A day or so before, at the insistence of the judge who was to try the case, Simonton, as a member of the public defender’s staff, was advised by the prosecuting attorney to talk with Ash, although without definite purpose at that time. As the result of that conference and his representation of another man accused of complicity in the crime at a preliminary hearing, Simonton became as he says,
“ * * * somewhat familiar with the factual situation, but I am not all familiar with Mr. Ash’s defense in this matter, nor have I had a chance or opportunity to talk with any of the witriesses which he intends to have at the trial. * * * I have spent probably six hours, I suppose, and I don’t feel that that is appropriate time for me to do a fair and competent job of his defense.”
The defendant himself said,
“I had been trying to get a lawyer for a long time. Retainers are expensive. I have talked to lawyers before, and they have estimated thousands, twenty-five hundred and stuff. I have no way of obtaining that much money.”
The trial judge, minutes before the trial was to begin, referred to previous advice to the defendant concerning right to have counsel appointed and that the trial would take place at the time set, and said:
“Therefore, his motion for continuance is denied for the reason that he was fully advised and has had an opportunity to engage counsel.”
Nothing is said about the expressed inability of appointed counsel to try a case without preliminary investigation, consultation with his client and witnesses, or any of the things that assure a competent and proper development of the facts and law of the case in order that an intelligent and informed verdict and judgment be rendered.
The majority seem to feel that defendant’s lack of prepared counsel is due to his *231own failure to request that counsel be appointed by the court and that he was using the counsel request as a ruse to delay action in his case' so that it was proper for the trial judge to prevent this “cat and mouse” game.
I can only conclude that the maijority consider it more important that the convenience of the court be observed than that criminal defendants be tried after time for careful preparation, but would further point out that the information was filed December 9, 1974, one day after the alleged offense. On that date defendant appeared before a justice of the peace and was advised of his right to counsel and to preliminary examination, which upon his request therefor was set for December 19, 1974. On December 19, without counsel, he waived such preliminary examination. The information was filed in the district court on December 31, 1974, he was arraigned before the district judge on January 6, 1975, and trial was set for February 11, 1975, a little over a month after the arraignment. The proceedings of that arraignment show that he was then thoroughly advised of his right to counsel and that one would be appointed for him if he could not obtain his own. They also show that the defendant was trying to obtain counsel but was having difficulty as related above. On January 28 he filed affidavit of prejudice against the judge of the district who had handled the arraignment, and the newly assigned judge on January 31 entered his order moving the trial back one day, to February 12.
I cannot agree with the majority’s appraisal of defendant’s conduct. While he may have been in a “situation of his own making” his lack of funds was a contributing factor to his lack of counsel, and his desire to have counsel of his own choice and at his own expense is surely not to be condemned. The 22 days between arraignment and request for appointed counsel hardly seem to me to demonstrate lack of diligence or a careless course of inattention. Nor does this seem to me unduly to disrupt the orderly, efficient, and speedy administration of justice.6
I concede that our district judges are busy and that a judge who has traveled the 118 miles from Rock Springs to Lander is inconvenienced by having to reset the trial for a later date, but I cannot see that this inconvenience is such as to require the denial of a continuance, certainly made in all good faith by the defendant’s newly appointed counsel.
I do not deny that, generally, the “granting or refusing of a request for continuance of the trial is ordinarily a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court under the circumstances of each case.” Dreyer v. State, 540 P.2d 541, 544 (Wyo.1975); 7 Jackson v. State, 533.P.2d 1, 5 (Wyo. 1975); Sims v. State, 530 P.2d 1176, 1181 (Wyo.1975). This I think leads the majority to examine the proceedings in the present case (notwithstanding the previous profession that' the effectiveness of counsel is not to be determined by the outcome of the case) and conclude that defendant has not been prejudiced wherefore *232there has been no manifest injustice. Perhaps in some cases the proof is so clear that even though defendant’s counsel immediately requests time to prepare, it may be determined that no preparation would have helped. I do not think that that is the situation here. Simonton immediately advised the court that he considered he could not do a competent job in the time he had. Where such a claim is made and tjhe court as well as the attorney is unaware of what the facts may be, how can it be said that justice is done by requiring the trial to proceed immediately ? 8
I do not say that Ash was not guilty as charged and found by the jury. I do not think that I must go to the extent of saying that a new trial with properly prepared counsel would result in a different verdict. To express it as simply as I can, I do not think that he had a fair trial because his counsel was not and could not be properly prepared for the trial. For that reason I would reverse the conviction and remand the cause for a new trial after a proper period for preparation.

. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527 (1932).

. The duty in a capital case to assign counsel “is not discharged by an assignment at such time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.” Powell v. Alabama, supra n. 1. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), without discussion of the term “effective” extends the constitutional right of counsel to any felony.

.Citing Powell v. Alabama, supra, and other cases.

. Goldstein Trial Technique (Goldstein & Lane 2d ed.), § 1.01, p. 1, “Preparation— Investigation — Mastery of the Pacts.” Bailey & Rotkblatt, Investigation and Preparation of Criminal Cases, § 1, p. 2.

. See also People v. Kenzih, 9 I11.2d 204, 137 N.E.2d 270, 274-275 (1956), stating that the “cases uniformly hold that a defendant is entitled to a continuance for adequate preparation for his defense” and adding, “There is a general tendency by the courts to exercise a greater leniency and wider discretion where it is necessary to protect the rights of indigent persons accused of crime through appointment of counsel not of their own choosing.”

. I cannot rid myself of the feeling that had retained counsel been brought into the scene for the first time on December 9 he might well have cringed at the prospect of trial on February 11.

. Oiting United States v. Spoonhmter, 476 F.2d 1050, 1056 (10 Cir. 1973), to the effect that discretion is not abused “in the absence of a clear showing of abuse resulting in manifest injustice.” None of .these cases involved the problem of newly appointed counsel being required to proceed to trial in minutes after his formal appointment and within hours of his first unofficial contact with the defendant. See also Ungar v. Sara-fite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ot. 841, 849, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964), where it is said: “The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is no.t every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel. * * * Contrariwise, a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right ,to defend with counsel an empty formality.”

. Merely as an illustration of possible ineffectiveness, I point out that the majority recognize that the case was disposed of on conflicting testimony. They say that other evidence in behalf of the defendant “would be largely cumulative or in the nature of attacking the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.” Carper, owner of the plastic site, was a principal and material witness against defendant being the only witness who placed him within the plastic enclosure. His credibility and opportunity for accurate observation were most important but Simonton was forced to cross-examine him without preliminary conference or examination of the physical facts. We have no idea as ,to what other defenses or evidence might have been developed by Simonton had he had proper time for preparation. Is this not “manifest injustice”?