Court Opinion

ID: 9551264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:50:21.748101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:24.983052
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(dissents).
I respectfully dissent to this decision. As I view the record, the defendant did not receive due process of law in his trial. However, in making this evaluation I do not fault the trial judge. He made every effort to assure that the defendant was present in the courtroom and wanted him to have court appointed counsel. But, notwithstanding this, when the defendant is not in the courtroom and has no one in the courtroom to represent his interests, I cannot agree that he received a fair trial.
So far as I know, there are no provisions in our system of jurisprudence which approve the conducting of a trial “in ab-sentia.” Admittedly, provisions have been made for the defendant to be placed in another room when he refuses to conduct himself properly, but in such cases someone represents his interests in the courtroom. Likewise, I believe Faretta v. California, supra, is misapplied in this decision. The record before this Court does not indicate that this defendant elected to represent himself; nor is the record clear that the defendant elected not to have court appointed counsel, except that he did not want the counsel the court appointed for him. Once it became clear that the defendant was not representing himself, the court had a duty to provide him with representation. However, as the trial proceeded this defendant was left without any representation whatsoever. This I cannot approve.