Court Opinion

ID: 9547725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:51:05.357607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:00.629277
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur with the opinion’s conclusion that the conviction must be reversed. However, I am compelled to take exception to the statement that “the right to counsel must be delicately balanced against the necessity of an orderly judicial process.” There is no indication in either the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s interpretation which supports this statement. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). I cannot agree that the trial court’s discretion in ruling on a defendant’s motion for continuance is an issue of equal magnitude with the right to counsel. The cited authority, Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964), is clearly distinguishable. Ungar, who was tried for contempt of court, was an attorney representing himself.
At no point does the record reflect that the appellant received any explanation of why he might need an attorney. He was forced to proceed pro se even though he was not “made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish [a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.]” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). See Johnson v. State, 556 P.2d 1285 (Okl.Cr.1976).
When the appellant showed up on the day set for trial without an attorney, the trial court should have done the following: made a determination of his capacity to pay for his own attorney; made a decision on the motion to continue based upon the pertinent facts; and, at least before permitting him to defend himself, provided adequate warnings on pro se representation. Otherwise, I concur in this decision.