Jefferson v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A0606,A93A0606 |
| Citation | 434 S.E.2d 814,209 Ga.App. 859 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JEFFERSON v. The STATE. |
John A. Jefferson, pro se.
Daniel J. Craig, Dist. Atty., Charles R. Sheppard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Jefferson was convicted of 16 counts of armed robbery, five counts of rape, ten counts of aggravated assault, three counts of aggravated sodomy, and 23 other offenses for which he was sentenced to 24 life terms and 375 years to run consecutively. The convictions and judgment were affirmed on appeal, in which the only issue was the validity of the search and seizure which yielded incriminating evidence. Jefferson v. State, 199 Ga.App. 594, 405 S.E.2d 575 (1991).
Thereafter, defendant filed a pro se "petition to correct void sentences" in the trial court. Denial of the petition was reversed because the trial court did not hold a presentence hearing, as required by OCGA § 17-10-2(a). Jefferson v. State, 205 Ga.App. 687(2), 423 S.E.2d 425 (1992).
Upon remand, the trial court reimposed the same sentences defendant had previously been given. This pro se appeal followed. Held:
1. Defendant's first enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him without the assistance of counsel to present and argue mitigating evidence. Since Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), 30 years ago, it has been constitutionally recognized that a person who stands charged with crime cannot give adequate voice to his position without the right to be heard by counsel. Thus it is settled that a criminal defendant is entitled to counsel at sentencing under the Sixth Amendment (through the Fourteenth Amendment), whenever the sentencing proceeding is more than ministerial, because it is a critical stage in the process. Green v. State, 194 Ga.App. 343, 346(7), 390 S.E.2d 285 (1990). Jefferson's sentencing clearly was more than ministerial because the court had the discretion to determine an appropriate penalty.
Prior to the presentence hearing on remand, defendant submitted to the court a lengthy handwritten document entitled "Legal Argument for Resentencing," arguing in favor of a lesser sentence than originally imposed, a copy of a brief filed by him in support of his habeas corpus action in another superior court, and a cover letter. In the letter, defendant stated that he is an innocent man wrongly convicted and that "[t]he purpose of submitting a copy of the brief to you is for the sole purpose of 'mitigation evidence.' " In the habeas corpus brief, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and he alleged trial error, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. As to the latter, he complained that counsel did not renew a defense motion for change of venue based on pretrial publicity and that counsel did not question police concerning why fingerprints of the perpetrator, left at crime scenes before defendant was arrested and charged, were not sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for identification. Apparently, the petition for habeas corpus remained pending at the time of the resentencing hearing.
Defendant's trial counsel appeared at the presentence hearing and is shown on the transcript as representing him. However, immediately after the beginning of the resentencing hearing, defendant asserted that he had no attorney, and in response to the trial court's observation that he had had counsel at trial, defendant indicated that he had fired his trial attorney. Defendant stated that he wanted a different attorney appointed to represent him to present evidence and argue the legal issues related to the multiple sentences. This colloquy continued for some time with the trial court informing defendant that he was not entitled to counsel of his own choice. The prosecuting attorney states in reference to defendant and his trial counsel that "[t]his man has his attorney with him today...." A fair reading of the transcript shows that defendant's trial counsel continued to represent him. Indeed, the presence of defendant's trial counsel at the resentencing hearing would be an anomaly if he was no longer representing defendant.
We must address the implications of defendant's refusal to cooperate with his trial counsel and announcement that he had discharged him. A defendant may not refuse to cooperate with appointed counsel and then claim he was not effectively represented. Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 303, 307(6), 298 S.E.2d 1. "[A]ny act of defendant which effectively terminated his counsel would not have had the effect of 'triggering' a duty upon the part of the trial court to appoint another attorney for defendant...." Durham v. State, 185 Ga.App. 163, 164(1), 363 S.E.2d 607. If the defendant does not have a good reason for discharging his court-appointed attorney, the trial court does not err in requiring him to choose between representation by that attorney and proceeding pro se. Durham v. State, 185 Ga.App. 163, 164(1), 363 S.E.2d 607, supra; Mock v. State, 163 Ga.App. 320, 293 S.E.2d 525. While the cases cited for these principles involve appointed counsel, we see no reason the underlying principles should not be equally applicable where counsel is retained or pro bono. The question is one of whether defendant's conduct amounts to a waiver of his right to counsel. In the resentencing hearing in the case sub judice, defendant appeared with counsel and was informed that he was not entitled to appointment of counsel of his own choosing, yet he chose to refuse the services of his trial counsel. Under these circumstances it was within the discretion of the trial court to view defendant's conduct as amounting to a waiver of counsel. Mercier v. State, 203 Ga.App. 494, 495(2), 417 S.E.2d 430. Thus, a notation on the sentence sheet that defendant appeared pro se is consistent with the posture he assumed at the sentencing hearing.
The pending claim of ineffective assistance at trial did not amount to a valid reason for defendant to discharge his trial counsel and demand appointment of a different attorney. The effectiveness claim created no conflict of interest between defendant and his trial counsel relevant to the issues addressed at the sentencing hearing. In McGuire v. State, 185 Ga.App. 233, 237-238(3), 363 S.E.2d 850, this court held that there was no harmful error in appointing that defendant's trial counsel, against whom an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was pending, to represent him on appeal to this court. As in McGuire, none of the issues arising from the ineffectiveness claim are involved in the matter on appeal and the trial court recognized that those issues were pending before another superior court and not the court below from which this appeal emanated. There was no violation of the ethical concerns which form the predicate of Castell v. Kemp, 254 Ga. 556, 331 S.E.2d 528. If there was no harmful error in appointing trial counsel to represent the defendant on appeal in McGuire, there is none here. Also, see such recent cases as Berry v. State, 262 Ga. 614, 615(3), 422 S.E.2d 861 and Nixon v. State, 255 Ga. 656, 657, fn. 1, 340 S.E.2d 7, where there were claims of ineffective assistance at trial pending against appellate counsel.
Furthermore, the analysis adopted in Amadeo v. State, 259 Ga. 469, 471(2), 384 S.E.2d 181 is not applicable to the case sub judice. Amadeo requires the trial court to consider a defendant's request to appoint the counsel of his preference, where the statement of preference is supported by objective considerations of the consequence there involved, and where there are no countervailing considerations of comparable weight. However, Amadeo must be distinguished on the facts since it is applicable only where a defendant has expressed a preference for a particular attorney. See Id. at 470, 384 S.E.2d 181. The defendant in the case sub judice is not concerned with acquiring representation by an attorney in whom he has developed a relationship of trust and confidence, but is only concerned with replacing an attorney with whom he is displeased. Defendant not having expressed any preference as to whom he wants appointed as replacement counsel, the request for appointment of a different attorney is governed by principles which predate Amadeo.
Even if the Amadeo analysis is applicable to these facts, the pending ineffective assistance claim against trial counsel is not an "objective consideration" of sufficient weight to require appointment of a different attorney. The argument that defendant's claim of ineffectiveness precludes the continued representation by trial counsel is not supported by any argument or citation of authority. Nor can this premise be reconciled with our holding in McGuire v. State, 185 Ga.App. 233, 237(3), 363 S.E.2d 850, supra. While the charges of ineffectiveness raised by defendant against trial counsel may affect the personal relationship between these two men, it must be recalled that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee defendant a meaningful relationship with his attorney. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 1617, 75 L.Ed.2d 610.
The Amadeo analysis also requires consideration of any countervailing considerations. Therefore, we must also consider the adverse effects of requiring appointment of substitute counsel whenever a defendant raises an ineffectiveness of counsel claim and demands a change of counsel. Since this may occur immediately before or during trial, requiring delay while new counsel becomes acquainted with the case, such a procedure places effective control of the judicial process in the hands of a defendant and is incompatible with the efficient administration of our criminal justice system.
2. The second enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Daker
...See Bryant , 268 Ga. at 617, 491 S.E.2d 320 ; Hobson v. State , 266 Ga. 638, 638, 469 S.E.2d 188 (1996). See also Jefferson v. State , 209 Ga. App. 859, 861, 434 S.E.2d 814 (1993) (explaining that if a defendant does not have good reason for discharging his counsel, a trial court does not e......
-
Allen v. Daker
...Bryant , 268 Ga. at 617, 491 S.E.2d 320 ; Hobson v. State , 266 Ga. 638, 638, 469 S.E.2d 188 (1996). See also Jefferson v. State , 209 Ga. App. 859, 861, 434 S.E.2d 814 (1993) (explaining that if a defendant does not have good reason for discharging his counsel, a trial court does not err b......
-
Busch v. State
...254 Ga. 603, 606(2), 331 S.E.2d 573 (1985); Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 148, 149-150(3), 344 S.E.2d 639 (1986); Jefferson v. State, 209 Ga. App. 859, 863, 434 S.E.2d 814 (1993). ...
-
Trujillo v. The State
...that discretion as to all aspects of the sentence that it imposes. See OCGA §§ 17-10-1(a)(1), 42-8-34(c); Jefferson v. State, 209 Ga.App. 859, 863(3), 434 S.E.2d 814 (1993). That discretion must nonetheless be exercised within the perimeters of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects all “......
-
Criminal Law - Frank C. Mills, Iii
...DR 5-105, no partner or associate of his firm may accept or continue such employment." 349. 212 Ga. App. at 129, 441 S.E.2d at 266. 350. 209 Ga. App. 859, 434 S.E.2d 814 (1993). 351. Id. at 861, 434 S.E.2d at 816. 352. Id. at 860-61, 434 S.E.2d at 816. 353. Id. at 861,434 S.E.2d at 816 (quo......