People v. Kammeraad
| Decision Date | 07 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 315114. |
| Citation | 307 Mich.App. 98,858 N.W.2d 490 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KAMMERAAD. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Frederick Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, and Judy Hughes Astle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Alane & Chartier, PLC, Lansing, (by Mary Chartier ), for defendant.
Before: MURPHY, C.J., and SHAPIRO and RIORDAN, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated assault, MCL 750.81a(1), three counts of resisting, obstructing, or assaulting a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1), two counts of assault of a prison employee, MCL 750.197c(1), and one count of refusing or resisting the collection of biometric data (fingerprints), MCL 28.243a. He was also held in contempt of court. Defendant appeals his convictions and the contempt ruling as of right. We affirm, except with respect to one of the convictions of resisting, obstructing, or assaulting an officer, which conviction we vacate on the basis of the prosecution's concession that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. In this opinion, we hold that defendant, being competent, forfeited his constitutional rights to counsel, self-representation, and to be present in the courtroom during his trial, given the severity of his misconduct and his absolute refusal to participate in any manner in the proceedings. Although the circuit court ordered appointed counsel to represent defendant during the trial, over counsel's strenuous objections and despite defendant's refusal to work with counsel, we conclude that, under the circumstances, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel in the first place. Therefore, even assuming that counsel entirely failed to subject the prosecution's case to any meaningful adversarial testing, reversal is not warranted. Defendant was free to refuse the assistance of counsel, to refuse self-representation, and to refuse appearing at or participating in his trial, forfeiting the associated constitutional rights. He cannot now complain that counsel's performance was deficient for failing to adequately defend against the prosecution's case, considering that it was always defendant's expressed wish not to present any type of defense to the charges.
The charges in this case stem from an incident at a dance hall in which defendant punched the unsuspecting victim in the face. The police arrived at the scene, and patrons identified defendant as the person who committed the assault. Defendant was arrested and transported to the county jail for booking. Defendant was evasive and uncooperative, refusing to give the police his full name or otherwise answer questions and resisting attempts to have his fingerprints taken. As three officers tried to escort defendant to a segregated unit of the jail, defendant “went to the floor” and started to kick and flail his arms at the officers. Defendant was subdued by the police and carried to a segregation cell, at which time the officers searched defendant. Defendant again physically resisted and kicked at the police during the search. The officers removed a lanyard from around defendant's neck that held a small folding knife.
The lower court record indicates that defendant refused to sign various standard district court forms and that he refused to attend a “pre-exam” conference. At the subsequent preliminary examination, the district court asked defendant if he wished to have a court-appointed attorney, and defendant responded:
Defendant repeated parts of this mantra in response to almost every statement made and question posed by the district court, regularly interrupting the court. The district court finally threatened to have defendant gagged. When the first witness was called to testify, defendant blurted out, After some more interruptions, the district court directed the bailiff to gag defendant, but the bailiff was apparently unsuccessful, and defendant exclaimed:
At this point, the district court had defendant removed to the bailiff's office where defendant could view and listen to the preliminary examination. As he was escorted out of the courtroom, defendant continued his rantings. After the testimony was completed, defendant returned to the courtroom, where he again repeatedly stated that he took exception to the proceedings. Defendant was bound over to the circuit court.
At his circuit court arraignment, defendant essentially carried on in the same manner as at the preliminary examination. Defendant refused to face forward towards the bench. Here are some excerpts of defendant's statements at the arraignment:
After repeatedly interrupting the circuit court with the same machinations, the following colloquy occurred:
When asked how he pleaded to the charges and whether he wished to be heard with regard to a bond, defendant stated that he took exception. The circuit court noted that defendant was refusing to communicate and that it would enter on defendant's behalf a plea of not guilty. Defendant continued to assert that he was refusing any and all court-appointed attorneys and court services and that he took exception to the proceedings.
At a hearing to amend the felony information, the circuit court initially asked defendant whether he waived his right to counsel or refused to be represented by counsel. Defendant responded, “I take exception.” The court proceeded to review the pending charges and the possible punishment for each charge. The circuit court next informed defendant that if he wished to represent himself, he would be expected to follow the rules of procedure and evidence and the court could not assist defendant as his advocate. When asked if he understood, defendant responded:
I take exception, I'm without a LEP interpreter, I do not understand what is going on here. I am not an attorney, I've never agreed to be in pro per and I have never agreed to represent myself in your venue.
At this stage in the hearing, the circuit court noted that defendant was “in a wheelchair and ... half naked from the elbows up.” A deputy chimed in that defendant refused to get dressed and that there was no physical reason for him to use a wheelchair.3 The circuit court then expressed its belief that defendant was determined to disrupt the proceedings and had demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate in any material way, including responding to the court's inquiries. The circuit court made an attempt to have defendant clearly and unequivocally waive his right to counsel, but defendant was entirely uncooperative. After defendant went on a diatribe that was consistent with his earlier remarks, the circuit court stated that it was convinced that defendant was determined to disrupt the proceedings, and it decided that it was necessary to appoint counsel for defendant. When asked by the court whether he would fill out a form regarding his financial situation for purposes of determining indigency status, defendant responded that he took exception. When informed by the court of the identity of the attorney that the court would be appointing, defendant stated:
I take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Francis
...N.E.2d 898 (1983) (court properly required uncooperative defendant to proceed pro se with standby counsel); People v. Kammeraad, 307 Mich.App. 98, 126–27, 858 N.W.2d 490 (2014) (concluding that wholly uncooperative defendant “received exactly what he desired” and refusing “to reward [him] w......
-
Neal v. Wolfenbarger
...from a silent record. People v. Armstrong, 212 Mich.App. 121, 129, 536 N.W.2d 789 (1995). See also People v. Kammeraad, 858 N.W.2d 490, 2014 WL 4999455 (Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 7, 2014) (holding that defendant did not waive his right to be present for trial even though he expressly asked to be re......
-
People v. Bensch
...to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.9 Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. People v. Kammeraad , 307 Mich. App. 98, 117, 858 N.W.2d 490 (2014). Thus, the underlying premise to Hellenthal is that a defendant consents to probation and can choose to reject i......
-
People v. Alexander
...competency includes "irrational behavior, a defendant's demeanor, and a defendant's prior medical record relative to competence." Id. at 139. "There must be some minimal showing that the cannot effectively communicate with his counsel, and his inability to assist in his own defense." People......