Court Opinion

ID: 9848739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:26:22.787348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:41.016170
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Justice
(dissenting).
The dissent contends that there is no factual basis for the conclusion that appellant intelligently understood his right to court-appointed counsel prior to arraignment and that there is no factual basis for the conclusion that appellant was informed and intelligently comprehended the meaning of his right to court-appointed counsel during the arraignment proceeding. The conclusion must be that appellant’s constitutional rights have been abridged and ignored.
In Cobas v. Clapp, 79 Idaho 419, 319 P.2d 475 (1957), the court held, from the following conversation which occurred at arraignment, that the defendant had waived his right to counsel:
“ ‘The Court: * * * Do you have an attorney to appear for you in this action?
“‘Defendant: No, sir.
“ ‘The Court: Have you made any effort to obtain an attorney?
“‘Defendant: No.
“ ‘The Court: Do you desire the aid of an attorney?
“‘Defendant: No.
“‘The Court: You are willing to proceed in this court without the advice of an attorney, are you ?
“ ‘Defendant: Yes.’ ”
At page 424 of 79 Idaho, at page 477 of 319 P.2d it was stated:
“When appellant was arraigned in the district court he stated specifically that he did not desire counsel, nor was there any showing made that he was unable to employ counsel, nor did he ask the court to appoint counsel for him. The rights afforded appellant under Sec. 19— 1512, I.C. on arraignment were in all things complied with. The right to’ counsel having been properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the courfs jurisdiction. * * * ” (emphasis supplied)
In State v. Thurlow, 85 Idaho 96, 375 P.2d 996 (1962) this court held from the following conversation which occurred at arraignment, that the defendant had not waived his right to counsel:
“ ‘THE COURT: The defendant, Harold Thurlow, will rise please. You have been charged with the crime of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen *285under the name of Harold L. Thurlow. Is that your true name?
“‘MR. THURLOW: Yes sir.
“ ‘THE COURT: Do you have an attorney ?
“‘MR. THURLOW: No.
“ ‘THE COURT: Do you want an attorney ?
“‘MR. THURLOW: No.
“‘THE COURT: You will listen to the reading of the information.
(Information read by the clerk)
“‘MR. CLERK: To this information what is your plea, guilty or not guilty?
“‘MR. THURLOW: Guilty.
“‘THE COURT: Do you have any recommendations ?
“‘MR. KNOWLTON: If the Court please, in this particular case I would move for a pre-sentence investigation.
“‘THE COURT: Be so ordered, (sic) You may be seated.’ ”
At page 103 of 85 Idaho, at page 1000 of 375 P.2d, it was stated:
“In concluding that defendant herein did not waive his right to counsel we refer to a definition and construction of waiver.
“ ‘Waiver is defined as the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Thus, the accused not only must voluntarily manifest his intention to waive his right or rights but it must clearly appear that he is completely aware of the nature of the charge against him and is competent to know the consequences arising from his waiver of these rights. * * (emphasis supplied)
“Defendant was not advised that he could have counsel appointed for him at the expense of the county if he was unable to pay for such services out of his own assets, if any he had. It appears from the pre-sentence investigation that the defendant had little or no funds and that his credit rating was ‘poor.’ It is incumbent upon the court, upon an arraignment for an offense such as is here involved, to ascertain if a defendant is financially capable of hiring counsel and to advise the defendant in order that he may intelligently respond to the court’s interrogation upon this subject. Unless informed of these statutory rights it is conceivable that defendant would not know of their existence and his inability to employ counsel would operate to deny him the opportunity to assert defenses to the charge in violation of his right of due process.” (emphasis supplied)
Although Cobas v. Clapp, supra, and State v. Thurlow, supra, may be distinguished procedurally (Cobas arose on habeas corpus while Thurlow arose on *286direct appeal), there is nothing to distinguish them factually. Both áre vitally concerned with1 the waiver of the constitutional right to counsel; yet they reach results which are diametrically opposed.
From Federal decisions and a reconsideration by this court in light thereof, it is obvious that the result in Thurlow should prevail. It must be realized we are dealing with a right herein that is protected not only by the Idaho Constitution (Art. 1 § 13) but also by the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). To represent, as does Cobas v. Clapp, cupra, that such a right may be waived by a defendant without full knowledge of the scope and meaning of the right denies equal protection to the uninformed indigent. A statement by a defendant that he does not desire counsel may be made under the mistaken belief that since he cannot afford to pay counsel he cannot secure legal representation. In order to insure that an indigent defendant receives the constitutional protection to which he is 'entitled, it is the obligation of the trial court before arraignment to inform each defendant without counsel of his right to court-appointed counsel, and in each case the court must determine if the defendant has his rights safeguarded.
The majority seem to infer that appellant was informed of his right to court-appointed counsel sometime prior to the arraignment proceedings. In light of State v. Thurlow, supra, that defendant must be informed of his right to court-appointed counsel “upon an arraignment,” it seems unnecessary to discuss this contention further. Thus the suppositions of the majority that conversations were held between the prosecutor and the appellant or the sheriff and the appellant or the committing magistrate and the appellant are mere surplusage and immaterial to this appeal. When a defendant appears for arraignment without counsel, the trial judge may not assume that his constitutional rights are being respected. That duty and the responsibility belongs to the trial judge:
“ * * * ‘The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused —whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ To discharge this duty properly in light of the strong presumption against waiver of the constitutional right to counsel, a judge must investigate as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case before him demand.' The fact that an accused may *287tell him that he is informed of his right to counsel and desires to waive this right does not automatically end the judge’s responsibility. To be valid such' waiver must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter. A judge can make certain that an accused’s professed waiver of counsel is understandingly and wisely made only from a penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances under which such a plea is tendered.
“This case graphically illustrates that a mere routine inquiry — the asking of several standard questions followed by the signing of a standard written waiver of counsel — may leave a judge entirely unaware of the facts essential to an informed decision that an accused has executed a valid waiver of his right to counsel. And this case shows that such routine inquiries may be inadequate although the Constitution ‘does not require that under all circumstances counsel be forced upon a defendant.’ * * * ” Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-724, 68 S.Ct. 316, 323, 92 L.Ed. 309, 320-321 (1948).
The order and the minute entry of the trial court in this cause support the position of the majority that appellant was informed of his right to court-appointed counsel. There is, however, direct evidence to the contrary. Confronted with this evidence, the majority has presumed that a conference took place just prior to arraignment between appellant and the trial judge, at which time appellant was thoroughly appraised of his right to court-appointed counsel.
The testimony of the reporter and the prosecutor establishes that such a conference did not take place. The prosecutor testified that he didn’t know where the parties were during the time of the presumed conference:
“Q. During this period of time you were typing the matter up in the court reporter’s office and using his typewriter, do you know where the defendant was?
“A. In the court room, other than that, I don’t know.
“Q. Was the district judge still in the court room?
“A. I believe he was, I don’t know that he was there all the time, I don’t know.”
*288As was noted in the majority opinion, the transcript of the proceedings which were taken by the court reporter are as follows:
“THE COURT: The defendant will stand up. You were charged with the crime of Murder in the First Degree which on motion of the Prosecuting Attorney and order of the Court has been reduced to Murder in the Second Degree under the name of Ralph Jackson. Is that your true name?
“MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Do you have an attorney ?
“MR. JACKSON: No, Sir. No.
“THE COURT: Do you want an attorney?
“MR. JACKSON: No.
“THE COURT: Then you will listen to the reading of the Information.-
(INFORMATION READ BY WAYNE C. MacGREGOR, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)
“THE COURT: To this Information what is your plea, guilty or not guilty?
“MR. JACKSON: Plead guilty.
“THE COURT: The Court in this case, in order to fix sentence, wants a pre-sentence investigation. Certain representations have been made to the Court by the Prosecutor but I would like it reduced to writing for — and a full investigation had. In the meantime you are recommitted to the custody of the sheriff. You may take him.
“THE COURT: You can take the file and prepare an order and also a minute entry.”
The court reporter testified that so far as he knew, the above transcript was a full and complete record of all the proceedings that transpired upon the arraignment:
“Q. Mr. Heston, were you present at all times during the proceedings from the moment the defendant was brought before Judge Cramer on, I believe, May 18, until the time he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff?
“A. I could not say that I was, as far as I know I was, there possibly might have been some matters gone over in chambers, and there is a possibility that there was some more hearing had in the courtroom, but I don’t know, it is just a possibility.
“Q. The judge then only called you in to take down this particular transcript that is now before the court?
“A. Yes, that is all I was present for.”
The majority opinion relies upon the minute entry and order of the court in saying that the appellant was informed of his right to court-appointed counsel. Ordinarily we would have no quarrel with this reasoning. However, a presumption must *289have some basis in fact. The prosecutor testified that according to his recollection the appellant was never informed of his right to court-appointed counsel:
“Q. Now at any time on May 18, or prior to May 18, do you recall anyone ever advising the defendant if he was without funds the court would appoint an attorney, this was one of his rights?
“A. No, I can’t say that I recall that.”
The majority suggests that we must presume that the appellant and the trial judge conferred sometime prior to the arraignment. However, the district judge, on the habeas corpus hearing, specifically found:
“That the District Court did not, at that time (after the petitioner intelligently and competently indicated to the Court that he had no counsel and did not want the aid of counsel, but before he was arraigned), orally explain to petitioner what constituted an intelligent and competent waiver of the right to the aid nf counsel, * (emphasis supplied)
To summarize, the only evidence the majority can point to that appellant was informed of his right to court-appointed counsel is the minute entry and order of the court. In the absence of other evidence, the majority relies upon the presumption that the minute entry and order are correct. However, they can point to no specific reference in the reporter’s transcript of the hearing that the defendant was informed and intelligently comprehended his right. To support this “presumption,” the majority relies upon an “occurrence” which might have happened, “sometime prior to arraignment.” [In other words, appellant’s appeal is to be denied because of a presumption based upon a possibility.] In State v. Thur-low, we stated that “Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right.” We arrived at the conclusion therein that appellant had not waived his right to counsel as he had not been apprised of his right to have counsel appointed him. As was stated in Davis v. State, Okl.Cr., 368 P.2d 519, at page 520 (1962). “* * * this court will indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, and will not presume acquiescence in their loss.” See also: Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L. Ed.2d 70 (1962), State v. Thurlow, supra, and Von Moltke v. Gillies, supra (there is a “strong presumption against waiver of the constitutional right to counsel”). If we presume knowledge of the right to court-appointed counsel, we are in effect, presuming waiver contra to one of the strongest presumptions known to law.
It is also to be noted that it is an elementary proposition that conclusions of law must be supported by findings of fact. The *290district court judge on the habeas corpus hearing concluded in his findings of law that appellant had competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, there is absolutely no finding of fact to support this proposition. Judge Durtschi did not make a factual finding that áppellant had been informed of his right to court-appointed counsel. It is true that Judge Durtschi did make a conclusion of law that appellant waived his right to counsel of his own employment and counsel which could have been appointed by the court; however without information of his right to court-appointed counsel it was impossible for appellant to effectuate a waiver (waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right).
There are other facts in this case which, although immaterial to this appeal, are worthy of mention. First is the fact that the appellant is a man seriously deficient in his mental capabilities, with a history of alcoholism, a mere eighth grade education, and a low I.Q. Were he to go back to school, he would be placed in the sixth grade (Tr. 42). The assumption of the majority that such a man could be aware of the technical refinements between degrees of murder seems highly improbable. The record' does not show appellant made request of the sheriff or the prosecutor to reduce the charge to second degree murder. The prosecutor’s own testimony bears this’ out:
“I don’t believe I personally fever discussed the charge, either of first degree murder or of second degree murder with Mr. Jackson other than I took application down to him to ask him whether this is what he wanted to do, plead guilty, he said he did and wanted to get it over with as fast as he could and asked me whether he could go to Lewiston and stay there, as far as actually discussing the charge, I don’t believe he and I ever had any discussion about it.” (Tr. 91-92)
The most that can be drawn from the record is that appellant told the sheriff that he didn’t mean to kill his wife. This could hardly be construed as conclusive of the fact that appellant was aware of the degrees of the crime of murder.
Secondly, appellant’s wife died from a blow on the arm, there were no witnesses, and the record is to the effect that the injuries were inflicted during a “drunken brawl.” Appellant seemed perfectly willing to plead guilty to first degree murder and apparently would have done so had not the prosecutor conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the crime after the complaint charging the appellant with first degree murder had been filed. (Tr. 93)
Third, on March 16, 1960, the crime was committed. • On the same day, appellant *291was taken into custody. On March 17th, he was charged with first degree murder and by March 18th, two days after his wife’s death, appellant had been convicted of second degree murder. Appellant was never informed of the degrees of the crime of murder; appellant was never told that under the law, he might very well be guilty of a lesser offense than that charged; and from the convicting court’s record, no inquiry was made as to the degree of the crime or into mitigating or aggravating circumstances as required by I.C. § 19-2515 and § 19-2516. The majority makes much of the fact that appellant was anxious to “get it over with.” It is the duty of our courts to zealously guard the constitutional rights of those accused of serious crimes, and not to negate such rights in the interest of time.
The Constitution states that our district courts are “courts of record.” This is a meaningful term. Their proceedings are of such importance as to be worthy of complete and accurate transcription. When a matter of such magnitude as the waiver of an individual’s right to counsel is before the court, the proceedings must be carefully and completely recorded so as to insure a reviewing court that due process was afforded the defendant. When such events are not completely reported in open court by record, it may be questioned whether they transpired at all.
The finding in the habeas corpus proceeding leads to the conclusion that appellant did not intelligently understand what a waiver of his right to the aid of counsel meant. The inescapable conclusion is that appellant was denied his right to counsel and therefore the convicting court was without jurisdiction to accept a plea of guilty and thereafter impose sentence.