Mathis v. State

• Decision Date: 19 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. F–2010–137.,F–2010–137.
• Citation: 271 P.3d 67,2012 OK CR 1
• Parties: Reginald Orlando MATHIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

2012 OK CR 1

271 P.3d 67

Reginald Orlando MATHIS, Appellant,

v.The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F–2010–137.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 19, 2012.

¶ 0 An Appeal From The District Court Of Oklahoma County; the Honorable Kenneth C. Watson, District Judge.Reginald Orlando Mathis, pro se at trial.

David Bedford, Assistant Public Defender, Oklahoma City, OK, Defendant's Standby Counsel at trial.

Matt Dillon, Assistant District Attorney, Oklahoma City, OK, attorney for State at trial.Andreas T. Pitsiri, Appellate Defense Counsel, Norman, OK, attorney for appellant on appeal.E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Lori S. Carter, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for appellee on appeal.

OPINION

SMITH, Judge.

¶ 1 Reginald Orlando Mathis, Appellant, was tried by jury and convicted of Possession of Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S. Supp.2005, § 1283(A) (Count II); Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), under 63 O.S. Supp.2004, § 2–402(A) (Count III); Possession of a Stolen Vehicle, under 47 O.S.2001, § 4–103 (Count IV); and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor, under 63 O.S.Supp.2004, 2–405(C) (Count VII), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF–2007–1941.¹ In accord with the jury verdict, the Honorable Kenneth C. Watson, District Judge, sentenced Mathis to imprisonment for 25 years on Count II, 15 years on Count III, and 5 years on Count IV, and a fine of $500 on Count VII, with the prison sentences all run concurrently.² Mathis is properly before this Court on direct appeal.³

¶ 2 On March 26, 2007, officers from the Oklahoma City Police Department's Springlake “IMPACT” unit executed a search warrant at a residence on N.E. 29th St., in Oklahoma City. Four people were in the home at the time, including Garnett Stoner, who answered the door and apparently lived in the home, Reginald Orlando Mathis, who also apparently lived in the home, and two other persons.⁴ The officers were looking for Mathis, who was known as “Sleepy.” Stoner stated that “Sleepy” was in the “back bedroom.” Mathis was found and detained in a bedroom in the northwest corner of the home.

¶ 3 Two marijuana roaches were found in an ashtray on top of a two-drawer dresser in this same room, next to a digital scale. A plastic baggie containing 4.5 grams of marijuana was found in the top drawer of the same dresser. In addition, an Oklahoma “Non–Driver Identification Card” for Mathis and a dry cleaning receipt with his name on it were found in the same room. ⁵ While the room was being searched, Mathis made numerous statements, including acknowledging that it was his bedroom, pointing out his “weed box” in the corner of the room, and stating that he used the digital scale to weigh his marijuana.⁶ The “weed box” did not contain any marijuana, but rather contained sandwich baggies, rubber bands, and Swisher Sweets cigars—the brown wrappings of which were consistent with the wrappings of the roaches found in the ashtray on the dresser.

¶ 4 A bundle of Wendy's restaurant gift cards was found in the bottom drawer of the two-drawer dresser, and a Texas vehicle tag was found beneath this drawer (when it was pulled out). A Dodge truck key was found in Mathis' left front pants pocket, which fit both the door and the ignition of a locked Dodge truck parked outside.⁷ The Texas vehicle tag found in Mathis' bedroom, “33DMD3,” was likewise an exact match to the Texas tag on the rear of this truck. The truck was parked so it faced the street, and the front tag had been removed. A computer search revealed that the truck had been recently stolen in Texas.⁸

¶ 5 The owner of the Dodge truck, Diana Richardson, testified at preliminary hearing, but did not show up at trial. The trial court declared her “unavailable” and allowed her earlier testimony to be read to the jury. This testimony established that the truck was stolen from a Kohl's store parking lot in Garland, Texas, on March 22, 2007. It had been left unlocked, and an extra key was inside the glove box. Richardson worked at a Wendy's restaurant, and Wendy's uniform hats were found in the truck; and Wendy's gift cards were found in the bedroom dresser. In addition, a Ruger Hi–Point 9–mm handgun was found in the center console in the front seat area of the truck, and eighty-five 9–mm bullets were found in a pantry near Mathis' bedroom. Richardson testified that the gun was not hers and that it was not in the truck when it was stolen.

¶ 6 In a post-arrest interview, Mathis admitted that the marijuana and scales found in the bedroom were his and that he knew the gun was in the truck, but claimed that a guy in the duplex next door, whose name might be “Jerome,” loaned him the truck for a month. Mathis acknowledged removing the front tag from the truck and putting it in his room, because he thought the truck might be stolen.

¶ 7 In Proposition I, Mathis asserts that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself and that this error was “detrimental” to him.⁹ The Supreme Court and this Court have recognized that a defendant has a constitutional right, under the Sixth Amendment, to represent himself at trial if he chooses to do so.¹⁰ Both courts have also recognized that because the right to the assistance of counsel is likewise a fundamental constitutional right, a defendant who desires to represent himself must first “knowingly and intelligently” waive the benefits of counsel, after being informed of “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” ¹¹ And in order to validly waive the assistance of counsel and proceed pro se, a defendant must be competent to make this decision and must be clear and unequivocal in his desire to proceed pro se.¹² This Court has recognized that whether such a waiver is valid will be determined from “the total circumstances of each case.” ¹³

¶ 8 The Supreme Court and this Court have also recognized, however, that an “intelligent” decision to waive counsel and proceed pro se is not the same as a “smart” or well-thought decision. The issue is whether the defendant was adequately informed and aware of the significance of what he was giving up, by waiving the right to be represented by counsel. As this Court noted in 1976:

The test whether a defendant has intelligently elected to proceed pro se is not the wisdom of the decision or its effect upon the expeditious administration of justice. It is only necessary that a defendant be made aware of the problems of self-representation so the record establishes that he understands that his actions in proceeding without counsel may be to his ultimate detriment.... [T]he defendant's technical knowledge of the law and its operation at trial is totally irrelevant in the assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself.

Johnson v. State, 1976 OK CR 292, ¶ 34, 556 P.2d 1285, 1294 (citing Faretta ).¹⁴

¶ 9 Mathis was represented by court-appointed counsel at his preliminary hearing in August of 2007. Mathis' counsel requested that his competency be evaluated in February of 2008, and a competency evaluation was ordered at that time.¹⁵ The competency evaluation was filed in the trial court in April of 2008 and concluded that there was no evidence that Mathis was incompetent, unable to appreciate the nature of the charges against him, a danger to himself or others, or that he suffered from “mental illness or cognitive deficits that would impair his ability to rationally consult with a lawyer and prepare his defense.” ¹⁶ Mathis was found competent by the court on April 16, 2008.¹⁷

¶ 10 Mathis first requested to be allowed to “go pro se ” on July 17, 2009, and a hearing was set on this request for July 22, 2009. Yet the record contains no evidence that this hearing was actually held. During a motion hearing before the Honorable Kenneth C. Watson, on November 16, 2009, Mathis again stated that he wanted to represent himself. Mathis was adamant that he did not want his then-appointed counsel, Erin Maxwell, to have anything to do with his case and that he could “do better than what she been doing.” ¹⁸ The trial court acknowledged Mathis' frustration with Maxwell—while maintaining that she was, in fact, “a good lawyer”—but emphasized that Mathis should understand (1) that Maxwell would no longer be his counsel, regardless of whether he chose to represent himself or not, and (2) that he should not underestimate the difficulty of representing himself.

¶ 11 Although the trial court stated that Mathis would get “a fair trial” in his courtroom whether or not he had counsel, the court advised Mathis that choosing self-representation would be “making a mistake” and noted that it took the attorneys and the court “years to familiarize ourselves” with the law that would apply to his case. The prosecutor likewise noted that Mathis needed to understand that he would be held to the same standards and rules as any attorney, even though he “doesn't know the rules” and “doesn't even know the different areas or stages of trial.” ¹⁹ At the end of the hearing, Mathis announced that he wanted more time to prepare his case and agreed to January of 2010 for a hearing on his motions and a trial date. In addition, public defender David Bedford announced that he would answer Mathis' questions, help him file motions (including a motion to have his bond reduced), and communicate with the prosecutor's office for Mathis.

¶ 12 At the motions hearing on January 21, 2010, the court noted that Mathis had not filed any new motions, but that there were various motions at issue filed by Mathis' former counsel. After struggling mightily (and unsuccessfully) to address the issues at stake in these motions, Mathis indicated that he would like Bedford, who was there assisting him, to take over and be his “lead counsel.” The court noted during this process that Mathis' confusion about how to proceed was why “it's bad for you to go...