Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 24 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 14478,14478
• Citation: Jones v. State, 353 N.W.2d 781 (S.D. 1984)
• Parties: Donna Oien JONES, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE of South Dakota, Respondent and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 781

353 N.W.2d 781

Donna Oien JONES, Petitioner and Appellant, v.STATE of South Dakota, Respondent and Appellee.

No. 14478.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs May 24, 1984.

Decided Aug. 29, 1984.

Charles Rick Johnson of Johnson, Eklund & Davis, Gregory, for petitioner and appellant.

Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.

DUNN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief.We reverse and remand.

Donna Oien Jones was tried before a jury and found guilty of aiding and abetting in the distribution of LSD.The trial court sentenced Jones to ten years in the state penitentiary and a $10,000 fine.Upon the advice of her attorney, Jones did not directly appeal the conviction to this court.She did, however, prior to the repeal of SDCL 23A-34, file a petition for post-conviction relief; the petition alleged inadequate assistance of counsel at her trial.The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that Jones had waived her right to effective assistance of counsel; as a result of that finding, the court decided not to fully address the question of whether or not defense counsel was competent.A certificate of probable cause that an appealable issue exists was granted by the post-conviction court.On appeal, Jones urges that there is no evidence to support the finding of a waiver of her right to effective assistance of counsel, and that in fact, her counsel was inadequate.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States ConstitutionandArticle VI, Sec. 7 of the South Dakota Constitution guarantee the right of an accused in a criminal action to have assistance of counsel.This right to counsel means adequate and effective counsel.State v. McBride, 296 N.W.2d 551(S.D.1980).However, constitutional rights, including those in the Bill of Rights, may be waived by a defendant, State v. Violett, 79 S.D. 292, 111 N.W.2d 598(1961), as long as the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747(1970);Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461(1938).Accordingly, we recognize that a criminal defendant may waive his right to adequate and effective assistance of counsel, as long as the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.Accord, People v. Johnson, 75 Ill.2d 180, 25 Ill.Dec. 812, 387 N.E.2d 688(1979).See alsoHolloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 483 n. 5, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178 n. 5, 55 L.Ed.2d 426, 433 n. 5(1978)(an accused may waive his right to be represented by conflict-free counsel);United States v. Alvarez, 580 F.2d 1251(5th Cir.1978);Kabase v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 471, 611 P.2d 194(1980).This court must then determine, after an examination of all the facts and circumstances in the case, whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Jones voluntarily waived her right to effective assistance of counsel.

A careful examination of the record reveals that there is no real evidence to indicate a knowing and intelligent waiver by Jones of this constitutional right.It is true, as the post-conviction court noted, that the trial judge warned defense counsel that his conduct was close to contempt of court, that his strategy was about to open the door to evidence which was irrelevant and prejudicial to his client, and that he was on "very dangerous grounds."However, all of these warnings took place outside the presence of Jones; Jones was never made aware of the trial judge's serious misgivings about her attorney.^*It is also true that during the trial a recess was called, at which time Jones was advised of her Fifth Amendment rights and warned of the dangers of taking the stand.But this discussion between Jones and the judge did not involve the issue of competency of counsel; it went solely to her rights concerning self-incrimination.Finally, it is also true that Jones' counsel was retained rather than appointed.But in light of the recent decision in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333(1980), we conclude that this factor should have no bearing on the question of waiver.In Cuyler, the Supreme Court stated:

A proper respect for the Sixth Amendment disarms petitioner's contention that defendants who retain their own lawyers are entitled to less protection than defendants for whom the State appoints counsel.We may assume with confidence that most counsel, whether retained or appointed, will protect the rights of an accused.But experience teaches that, in some cases, retained counsel will not provide adequate representation.The vital guarantee of the Sixth Amendment would stand for little if the often uninformed decision to retain a particular lawyer could reduce or forfeit the defendant's entitlement to constitutional protection.

446 U.S. at 344, 100 S.Ct. at 1716, 64 L.Ed.2d at 344.

It is significant that those courts which have dealt with this waiver issue have stressed the importance of the trial judge's active participation in the waiver decision.They state that the judge should inform the defendant of the problems with defense counsel and seek a response from the defendant that he understands his rights and the perils of continuing with the present counsel.See, e.g., United States v. Mahar, 550 F.2d 1005(5th Cir.1977);United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272(5th Cir.1975);People v. Johnson, supra.No such discussion took place here.Jones was never informed of the serious problems which the trial judge clearly observed in counsel's handling of the case.

In its decision, the post-conviction court makes much of the fact that Jones made no request for a continuance to get another lawyer and that she participated in the "high risk" defense strategy.But how can a defendant, a non-lawyer who has not been informed of the problems in the handling of the case, be expected to evaluate the available alternatives and make decisions regarding motions and trial tactics?Without being informed of the problems in the case, a defendant simply cannot become aware of the likely consequences of continuing with the present counsel, and therefore, cannot make an intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.It is abundantly clear from the record that Jones did not knowingly or intelligently waive her right to effective assistance of counsel in the trial below.

The next issue is whether Jones was in fact provided effective assistance of counsel.When reviewing such claims in the past, this court has used the following standard: 1) an attorney is presumed competent; and 2) the party alleging incompetence has a heavy burden in establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.Jibben v. State, 343 N.W.2d 788(S.D.1984);Grooms v. State, 320 N.W.2d 149(S.D.1982).This court's function is not to second-guess the tactical decisions of the trial attorney, nor will we substitute our own theoretical judgment for that of defense counsel; but this court should not hesitate to reverse a conviction if the record reveals that a defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel.Grooms v. State, supra.

While this has been our standard, we must also take note of the very recent case of Strickland v. Washington, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984), in which the Supreme Court for the first time dealt with a general claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.In Strickland, the Court reiterated its position that the 6th Amendment right to counsel means the right to effective assistance of counsel.The Court also stated the following general principles to be applied in such cases.The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.To reverse a conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, a defendant must show: 1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and 2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.The test for prejudice is whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.In making these evaluations, the proper standard for attorney performance is that of "reasonably effective assistance."Counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance, and a court must judge the reasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct.

This new Supreme Court ruling is in accord with numerous points in our long-held position, while at the same time it is less restrictive than our prior standard.In reviewing this case, we shall examine the facts under both the old and new standards.However, before we consider this issue, we must deal with the post-conviction court's decision not to enter findings and conclusions on the competency question since it found a waiver of rights.Normally, this would require us to remand the case for specific findings on the issue.But despite its statements to the contrary, the court did in fact make a ruling on the competency of defense counsel when it concluded that "trial counsel intentionally persuaded Defendant not to exercise her rights of appeal in order to avoid damage to his reputation.Therefore, she did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right to appeal her conviction to the Supreme Court."In Grooms v. State, supra, we held that failure to appeal within the prescribed time cannot be viewed as a strategic move on the part of an attorney; such failure is strong evidence of a failure to protect the interests of the defendant.320 N.W.2d at 152.Here, we have an analogous, and perhaps more serious situation: no appeal was ever taken...