People v. Lesley

• Decision Date: 02 March 2017
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3–14–0793
• Citation: 76 N.E.3d 42,2017 IL App (3d) 140793
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Myron T. LESLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2017 IL App (3d) 140793

76 N.E.3d 42

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Myron T. LESLEY, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal No. 3–14–0793

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2017

Michael J. Pelletier and Tiffany Boye Green, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Karen Donnelly, State's Attorney, of Ottawa (Richard T. Leonard, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE LYTTONdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1Defendant, Myron T. Lesley, raises two issues for our review.First, he argues that the trial court erred in forcing him to represent himself at his evidentiary hearing due to disagreements he had with his appointed counsel without first warning defendant that his conduct could result in the waiver of his right to counsel, and second, the trial court applied a misconduct standard of proof at the evidentiary hearing.Because we reverse and remand on the first issue, we need not reach the second.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 On June 13, 2013, defendant pled guilty to the offenses of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2)(West 2012)) and unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2)(West 2012)) in exchange for consecutive sentences of five years' imprisonment and six years' imprisonment, respectively.The State also agreed to dismiss four additional charges.

¶ 4 On September 30, 2013, defendant filed a postconviction petition arguing that he received ineffective assistance of plea counsel in that counsel failed to adequately investigate the case and gave him erroneous advice.The petition also claimed that defendant's sentences "could have been ran concurrently * * * when nothing was stated in sentencing on the reason for consecutively."

¶ 5 On October 30, 2013, the State filed a motion to dismiss the postconviction petition.At a hearing the next day, the trial court appointed the public defender to represent defendant.On November 21, 2013, defendant appeared with Timothy Cappellini, the La Salle Countypublic defender, for a "first appearance" hearing on the postconviction petition.Defendant informed the court that he and Cappellini had a disagreement.Defendant stated that Cappellini told defendant to "go pro se and do it [himself]" when defendant told Cappellini he needed to see transcripts of prior proceedings.Cappellini responded: "I said if he doesn't want me to represent him, he can go pro se .Otherwise, I will acquire the transcripts, I will review 'em and I will be the attorney."The trial court continued the matter.

¶ 6 On February 20, 2014, Douglas Kramarsic, an assistant public defender, appeared on behalf of defendant at a status hearing.Kramarsic stated that he had previously met with defendant to attempt to explain changes he wanted to make to the postconviction petition.Defendant became "very belligerent" and told Kramarsic "numerous times to go fuck [him]self."Defendant said that Kramarsic was "fired" and he wanted to hire his own attorney.Defendant grabbed the papers out of Kramarsic's hands "in a physical and aggressive manner."Kramarsic then left the room as defendant continued to yell obscenities at him.

¶ 7 Kramarsic then stated: "Your Honor, I believe at this point it's clear that [defendant] does not wish to continue with me as his attorney, and I'll leave it to the Court's discretion as to what should take place next."The trial court told defendanthe could respond, and defendant stated:

"First of all, Your Honor, he came back there and told me something totally different.It wasn't all this and that.It got out of hand—not out of hand, he tried to treat me like I'm stupid or something.* * * [A]nd then I'm trying to show him something and he's ignoring it and I'm yelling at him, I don't think he's trying to help me, he's trying to hurt me."

¶ 8The trial court said that defendant had been appointed several public defenders and there was no one left to appoint.The trial court also told defendant that he did not have a choice as to which attorney he was assigned from the public defender's office.Defendant indicated that he wished to hire his own attorney, and the trial court granted him a 60–day continuance to do so.The trial court stated, "I can't give you another Public Defender but I can certainly let you hire somebody."The following exchange then occurred between the trial court and Kramarsic:

"MR. KRAMARSIC: Your Honor, I guess at this point it may leave me in limbo.I guess if you're still leaving me as the attorney of record, there are issues that I would want to correct with this but [defendant] certainly does not wish to hear anything that I have to say.

* * *

THE COURT: Is there anything that you want to put on the record today?

MR. KRAMARSIC: I mean, I would just like to say that I have reviewed the records, I have reviewed everything involved in this case.I haven't filed my certification regarding that, which I was going to file with my amended petition, but I can't even get to the point of being able to do that.

THE COURT: And I won't have you do that.

MR. KRAMARSIC: Okay.

THE COURT: Right now, nothing you will do, because he's requested time to—

MR. KRAMARSIC: Sure.

THE COURT: —get a private lawyer.

And so I'm reserving my ruling on you filing anything, nor are you under any obligation to do that until I see what [defendant] can find in 60 days, so let's do that for you."

¶ 9 Another status hearing was held on April 24, 2014.Kramarsic advised the court that he attempted to discuss with defendant whether defendant had been able to hire private counsel and "it [was] one hundred percent absolutely clear from our conversations that [defendant] want[ed] nothing to do with [Kramarsic] in this case."Defendant stated that he was trying to find an attorney but had not hired one yet.The trial court scheduled a hearing on the State's motion to dismiss for June 12, 2014.The trial court told Kramarsic: "I'm aware he won't talk to you.And so you won't be representing him at any hearing at this point."The trial court then stated:

"THE COURT: All right.* * * And if [defendant] doesn't have a lawyer [at the hearing on the motion to dismiss], I'll have to address him as to his options.

But you put on the record he doesn't want to talk to you.That's fine.You have—

I'm not dismissing you completely, I'm leaving options open.But I won't expect you to be prepared for a hearing is what I am saying.

MR. KRAMARSIC: Okay.

THE COURT: You're still in the case."

¶ 10 At the hearing on June 12, defendant had not hired private counsel.The following exchange occurred:

"[THE COURT:] * * * Now, [defendant], it's my understanding that you still want to proceed pro se to represent yourself?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to have to, Your Honor, yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Why are you going to have to?

THE DEFENDANT: I asked [Kramarsic] three times back there are you going to help me and he gave me no answer.

THE COURT: Now, when you say, is he going to help you, what do you mean by that?I need to investigate this issue.

THE DEFENDANT: That's what I'm saying, is he going to help me try to get through this post-conviction?

THE COURT: Well, he has so far, has he not?Mr. Kramarsic?

THE DEFENDANT: He hasn't filed no motion or nothing.

THE COURT: You need to address this issue because when there's a complaint, you know, we need to have an answer here.

MR. KRAMARSIC: Your Honor,—

THE COURT: It's not just—[defendant's] complaining not just that he wants to represent himself but he says that you said you're not going to help him so why don't you respond.

MR. KRAMARSIC: You Honor, I have.This is the third time I've attempted to talk to [defendant] about this case.First time that I met with him he did not agree with the—with my ideas with the case and the way I wanted to proceed and I told him I didn't believe the issues here—that we had strong issues, and he wanted to proceed with what he thought was the right way to do it and not even listen to the way I wanted to proceed with the case.That was the first time.

The second time I met with him again I tried again to explain what I felt about the case.Again, he disagreed with me.That was the time that he lunged at me and swore at me and told me to leave, and certainly I could tell at that point that obviously he does not want me to help him at all.He just doesn't agree with my theory of the case and clearly does not want me involved with it and I feel like I'm stuck here because I don't know what else to do.[Defendant has] told me numerous times he does not want me to do anything.

THE COURT: All right, well, I find knowing [defendant], and considering the issues involved here, that it appears you do not want to listen to Mr. Kramarsic.

Now the question—I will allow—you can't choose what Public Defender you're going to have so I'll allow the Public Defender to withdraw.

Now, the question becomes, [defendant], the only right to a lawyer that you have—I feel you are capable of representing yourself if that is your desire, is whether you want to hire private counsel or you want to represent yourself pro se .

That's the first question I have of you.What is your answer?

THE DEFENDANT: I was trying to hire private counsel, Your Honor, you know what I'm saying, but finally no funding.* * *

THE COURT: * * * do you want to represent yourself?

THE DEFENDANT: No, I can't represent myself.

THE COURT: Well, you're going to have to.

THE DEFENDANT: All right, let's go.

THE COURT: When you say you can't—are you telling me that you're not going to be able to hire private counsel?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm waiting on my parents."

¶ 11The court asked defendant if he was ready to proceed on the State's motion to dismiss, and defendant replied, "I guess so."The court then asked defendant to answer "yes" or "no," and defendant said, "I got no attorney.I guess not."The court granted defendant a 35-day...