Oliver v. State, CR

• Decision Date: 18 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Parties: Samuel Willie OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 95-30.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 690

918 S.W.2d 690

323 Ark. 743

Samuel Willie OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 95-30.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 18, 1996.

Appeal from Pulaski County, Circuit Court, Sixth Division, No. CR 92-2006; Hon. David Bogard, Judge.

Robert F. Morehead, Pine Bluff, for Appellant.

David R. Raupp, Asst. Attorney General, Little Rock, for Appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

Appellant Samuel Willie Oliver raises two points in his appeal of four convictions for delivery of crack cocaine. He first contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel and did not waive such. He, secondly, urges that his due process rights were violated owing to lack of information about the arresting officer's medical condition. Neither point has merit, and we affirm.

Samuel Oliver was charged with four counts of delivery of crack cocaine. The State's principal witness was an undercover investigator, Thomas Washington, who made the four drug purchases from Oliver. Officer Washington later became ill. He originally suffered from environmental encephalitis and multiple brain aneurysms. He also suffered from sarcoidosis, a disease in which lesions develop throughout the body. Oliver tried to discover Officer Washington's medical records, and his request was denied by the trial court.

Prior to trial, Oliver retained four different attorneys for his defense, and each one was terminated at his request. The last termination of counsel occurred at the omnibus hearing before trial commenced, where Oliver announced his intention to proceed pro se. The following colloquy occurred between Oliver and the trial court:

SAM OLIVER: I'm doing my own pro se.

JOE OLIVER: He's doing his own pro se.

SAM OLIVER: I filed my own motions already.

JOE OLIVER: And he subpoenaed--

SAM OLIVER: Thomas Washington.

JOE OLIVER: --Thomas Washington, and we have a copy of the subpoenas right here, both of them.

COURT: Well, I've got to--to recommend you not do this, Mr.--both Mr. Olivers, you know.

SAM OLIVER: I want to represent--

COURT: You're proceeding by yourself and think you're--as I've told you before, I think that dangerous to do that.

....

COURT: Well, I can't force you to have an attorney. You see, I can't force one on you and I think it's against your better interest to do that, but I can't make you--

SAM OLIVER: I'm prepared--

COURT: --have an attorney.

SAM OLIVER: I'm prepared for the case today.

COURT: At the trial of this case, I will still have an attorney sitting at the counsel table in case you need one.

SAM OLIVER: No, I don't think so, Your Honor, 'cause--

COURT: Well, I think so we will. We will have an attorney sitting at the counsel--you don't have to use him.

COURT: You can ignore him. That's your prerogative, but there will be one available for you.

....

Okay, Mr. Smedley, [attorney], I'm going to relieve you. These gentlemen don't want your services.

SMEDLEY: Thank you.

COURT: That's against my advice, once again for the record,--

SMEDLEY: It's against my advice, too.

COURT: --but they don't have to--they don't have to have an attorney.

The trial court permitted Oliver to proceed pro se, and standby counsel played an active role in the trial. Oliver was found guilty on all four counts and received a cumulative sentence of twenty years. He appealed his conviction on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, and the Court of Appeals upheld it in an unpublished opinion. Denial of counsel was not an issue on appeal.

Oliver next filed a petition for relief under Ark.R.Crim.P. 37. He alleged in his petition that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney and was forced to proceed pro se. He also alleged that the State withheld essential evidence (Washington's medical history) in violation of Ark.R.Crim.P. 17 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), which effective counsel would have obtained. A hearing was held and following that proceeding, the trial court denied the petition and made the following finding, among others:

5. The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily elected to proceed to trial pro se after being cautioned extensively about doing so by the court. Competent counsel was nonetheless appointed to accompany defendant to trial, was available throughout trial and to the extent called upon by the defendant performed competently and effectively.

No specific ruling was made on whether failure to obtain Officer Washington's medical records constituted ineffective counsel. Oliver now appeals.

For his first point, Oliver argues that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry into his financial condition in connection with his ability to hire counsel and, thus, deprived him of the right to have appointed counsel. The State's initial response is that this argument is procedurally barred because (1) it could have been raised on direct appeal, and (2) it is not an argument cognizable under Rule 37.

This court has previously considered Rule 37 appeals dealing with the issue of denial of counsel. See Costillo v. State, 292 Ark. 43, 728 S.W.2d 153 (1987) (direct appeal not perfected); Philyaw v. State. 288 Ark. 237, 704 S.W.2d 608 (1986) (direct appeal not perfected); Leak v. Graves & State, 261 Ark. 619, 550 S.W.2d 179 (1977). Here, Oliver's argument is that had the trial court inquired into his financial condition, counsel might well have been appointed for him at no expense. The implication is that he did not know that he might qualify for counsel as an indigent, and the inquiry by the court would have alerted him to that fact.

We are troubled by the fact that the denial of counsel under the Sixth Amendment is an issue more appropriately raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Deere v. State, 301 Ark. 505, 785 S.W.2d 31 (1990). We can perceive of no good reason for permitting a defendant to pursue a direct appeal on unrelated grounds while saving denial of counsel for Rule 37 relief and as "insurance" in the case of an adverse appellate decision. In this case, Oliver knew what his counsel status was at trial and to the extent his Sixth Amendment rights were impaired, this should have been raised on direct appeal. Instead, Oliver contended in his direct appeal that evidence was insufficient for his conviction. This scenario should not be allowed to transpire. We hold that the issue of denial of counsel must be raised on direct appeal or be waived.

By the same token, the caselaw cited above more than suggests that denial of counsel may be raised in a Rule 37 petition. To the extent the cases stand for this proposition, Costillo v. State, 292 Ark. 43, 728 S.W.2d 153 (1987); Philyaw v. State, 288 Ark. 237, 704 S.W.2d 608 (1986); and Leak v. Graves & State, 261 Ark. 619, 550 S.W.2d 179 (1977) are overruled.

In overruling these cases, we must consider whether our requirement that this issue be raised on direct appeal should be applied prospectively. We have held that when our cases appeared to go both ways on when an appeal from a denial of a motion to transfer to juvenile court should be taken, it would be unconscionable to deny or foreclose an appellant the right to appeal. Hamilton v. State, 320 Ark. 346, 896 S.W.2d 877 (1995). We conclude that fairness dictates a prospective application of our holding. Oliver could justifiably have relied on the cases now overruled. See Wiles v. Wiles, 289 Ark. 340, 711 S.W.2d 789 (1986). Recently, we overruled caselaw which had held that failure to preserve the issue of insufficiency of the evidence was not grounds for Rule 37 relief. See Thomas v. State, 322 Ark. 670, 911 S.W.2d 259 (1995) (per curiam). We applied the Thomas decision prospectively. We do the same in the case before us.

We next turn to the merits of Oliver's first point. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee that any person brought to trial in any state or federal court must be afforded the fundamental right to assistance of counsel before that person can be validly convicted and punished by imprisonment. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Daniels v State, 322 Ark. 367, 908 S.W.2d 638 (1995); Kincade v. State, 303 Ark. 331, 796 S.W.2d 580 (1990). It is also well established that an accused has a constitutional right to represent himself and make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in his defense. Faretta v. California, supra; Daniels v. State, supra; Deere v. State, 301 Ark. 505, 785 S.W.2d 31 (1990). But every reasonable presumption must be indulged against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. Daniels v. State, supra; Kincade v. State, supra; Philyaw v. State, supra. The burden is on the State to show that an accused voluntarily and intelligently waived his fundamental right. Daniels v. State, supra; Scott v. State, 298 Ark. 214, 766 S.W.2d 428 (1989). Determining whether an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel has been made depends in each case on the particular facts and circumstances, including the background, the experience, and the conduct of the accused. Daniels v. State, supra; Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617, cert. denied 491 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3199, 105 L.Ed.2d 707 (1989).

Oliver claims that he did not voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to counsel. He was forced to go to trial pro se, he contends, because he could not afford another attorney and because the trial court failed to inquire into his financial condition or to inform him that he could have had counsel appointed. This court stated in Kincade v. State, supra, that the trial court must inquire of an accused's ability to retain counsel, and if the accused is an indigent, counsel must be appointed for him. Ark.R.Crim.P. 8.2. The trial court must do more than just make an inquiry. The court must...