Lucero v. Lundquist, s. 28173
| Citation | 196 Colo. 95,580 P.2d 1245 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 28173,28183,s. 28173 |
| Parties | Frank R. LUCERO, Petitioner, v. Wallace LUNDQUIST, Acting District Judge, Fremont County, State of Colorado, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Frank R. Lucero, pro se.
Wallace Lundquist, pro se, J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Denver, Patricia W. Robb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pueblo, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in the nature of mandamus. We issued a Rule to Show Cause and now make the rule absolute and remand with directions.
The petitioner, Frank R. Lucero, is confined at the Colorado State Penitentiary for aggravated robbery. While in the penitentiary, the petitioner was charged with assault in the first-degree upon a penitentiary officer and with being an habitual criminal.
The petitioner elected to appear Pro se in the District Court for Fremont County and filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Max Wilson. A different judge was assigned to hear the Motion for Disqualification and advisory counsel was appointed for the petitioner. On the date of the scheduled hearing, the petitioner was brought into Court in handcuffs, leg irons and with a "belly chain" as a restraint. He requested that he be freed of the restraints during the hearing so that he could properly represent himself citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The trial judge denied the request and suggested that the petitioner's advisory counsel could take notes for him and could assist him with the files that he had relating to his case.
It is plain that such restraints in the courtroom would be prohibited if the defendant were being tried by a jury. People v. Cardwell,181 Colo. 421, 510 P.2d 317 (1973). In a hearing before a trial judge, however, the Court may properly impose restraints which are necessary to maintain the security of the courtroom. To restrain an inmate litigant who appears Pro se to the extent that he cannot write or use his hands to locate papers within his files is unreasonable. Here, the petitioner was restrained by every means available and the restraints interfered with his ability to represent himself in accordance with the mandate of Faretta v. California, supra.
Only that security is permitted which is necessary to insure that the defendant remains in custody, and will not endanger court personnel or others in the courtroom, and will not disrupt the trial. People v. Rogers, 187 Colo. 128, 528 P.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Moody
... ... Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); see also Lucero v. Lundquist, 196 Colo. 95, 580 P.2d 1245 (1978); Montoya v. People, 141 Colo. 9, 345 P.2d 1062 ... ...
-
People v. Lucero
...related to his right to represent himself without physical restraints, and was resolved favorably to the defendant. Lucero v. Lundquist, 196 Colo. 95, 580 P.2d 1245 (1978). ...
-
Hoang v. People
...avoid a defendant's escape, to prevent trial disruptions, and to ensure the security of those in the courtroom. Lucero v. Lundquist, 196 Colo. 95, 97, 580 P.2d 1245, 1246 (1978); accord Deck, 544 U.S. at 633, 125 S.Ct. 2007. To preserve the rights of the accused, the United States Constitut......
-
People v. James
...was unnecessary, or that the trial court erred in failing to make the necessary findings to justify restraint, see Lucero v. Lundquist, 196 Colo. 95, 580 P.2d 1245 (1978), as noted above, we conclude that the use of restraints did not prejudice defendant. Accordingly, we find no reversible ......