People v. Waller
Decision Date | 11 August 2016 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 14CA1009 |
Citation | 412 P.3d 866 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Anthony M. WALLER, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Patricia R. Van Horn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff–Appellee
Gail K. Johnson, Kathryn D. Stevenson, Alternate Defense Counsel, Boulder, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellant
Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB
¶ 1 Defendant, Anthony M. Waller, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of third degree assault. On appeal, he contends that (1) his constitutional right to self-representation was violated by the trial court's denials of his requests to represent himself with the assistance of advisory counsel; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by declining his requests for appointment of advisory counsel to assist him in proceeding pro se; and (3) his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by an impartial jury were violated by the court's jury instruction on reasonable doubt that allegedly abolished the jury's power to nullify. We affirm.
¶ 2 Waller was charged with second degree kidnapping, false imprisonment, third degree assault, and menacing for allegedly punching a woman and dragging her back to a motel room where they had been staying.
¶ 3 Due to a material witness not showing up at trial, the prosecution dismissed the false imprisonment and menacing charges. At the end of the trial, a jury acquitted Waller of second degree kidnapping but found him guilty of third degree assault, a class 1 misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Waller to two years in the county jail.
¶ 4 This appeal followed.
¶ 5 Waller contends that, due to the circumstances of his case, the trial court's failure to appoint advisory counsel to assist him with proceeding pro se violated his federal and state constitutional rights to self-representation. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his requests for advisory counsel to assist him in proceeding pro se. We disagree with both contentions.
¶ 6 We first summarize the lengthy procedural history that pertains to these contentions.
¶ 7 In September 2012, Waller appeared in county court for his second advisement. He told the court that a conflict of interest existed between him and the public defender's office and stated that he wished to proceed pro se but with the assistance of advisory counsel. The county court told Waller that he had the right to proceed pro se, and that it might appoint advisory counsel at a later time if the case proceeded to hearing.
¶ 8 One month later, Waller appeared pro se at a preliminary hearing and asked the court whether it was going to appoint advisory counsel. A public defender conferred with Waller off the record and, afterward, told the court that Waller believed there was a conflict of interest with the public defender's office because he had been represented by the public defender's office in a prior case that was pending before the court of appeals. The public defender told the court that Waller wanted an attorney to represent him and thus wanted the court to appoint Alternate Defense Counsel (ADC). The court appointed ADC to represent Waller and set the case for a status hearing the following week.
¶ 9 Waller appeared with ADC at the status hearing. At both the status hearing and another hearing in November 2012, defense counsel notified the court that Waller wanted to proceed pro se with advisory counsel. The county court ruled during both hearings that Waller could proceed pro se or proceed with counsel representing him, but the court was not going to appoint his counsel to act simply in an advisory manner for a preliminary hearing. Waller elected to proceed with his counsel representing him at both hearings.
¶ 10 In December 2012, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw and renewed Waller's request to proceed pro se with the assistance of advisory counsel. At a later hearing, the county court denied Waller's motion and bound the case over to the district court.
¶ 11 During a motions hearing in district court on February 28, 2013, the court addressed a motion Waller had filed requesting to proceed pro se with the assistance of advisory counsel. Defense counsel argued that Waller had a constitutional right to represent himself if he so desired, and that the court had an interest in appointing advisory counsel for him so he could represent himself effectively and efficiently. Defense counsel further argued that Waller was intelligent and sophisticated "in terms of [how] these proceedings work," but he recognized that there were layers of complexity where advisory counsel would be useful to Waller. The prosecutor did not object to Waller proceeding pro se, but did object to him proceeding pro se with the assistance of advisory counsel due to a history of "abusing" advisory counsel in prior cases.
¶ 12 After hearing argument by both parties, district court Judge Madden stated:
¶ 13 Judge Madden stated that he would make a final decision in writing after completing his review of the record and applicable case law. During this hearing, Waller also requested that he receive additional law library time so that he could research and decide whether to proceed pro se. The court stated that it would follow up at a later time on Waller's request.
¶ 14 On March 6, 2013, Judge Madden issued a written order denying Waller's request to proceed pro se with the assistance of advisory counsel. Judge Madden's order stated, in pertinent part:
(Citations omitted.)
¶ 15 In June 2013, the parties appeared for a suppression hearing, but the hearing centered on the issue of whether Waller would proceed pro se. Waller requested, and the court granted, a one-month continuance of the suppression hearing so he could determine whether he would represent himself and prepare for the suppression hearing if he decided to proceed pro se. Additionally, Waller requested that he receive additional law library access, and a sheriff in the courtroom said he would address the library issue with his captain and get back to the court's clerk.
¶ 16 The district court proceedings were then delayed due to a medical emergency on the part of defense counsel and a later substitution of counsel for Waller.
¶ 17 On November 1, 2013, Waller's substitute ADC filed a motion asserting Waller's continued desire to proceed pro se with the assistance of advisory counsel. Defense counsel argued that the court should appoint advisory counsel for Waller because he had a limited education, he had documented mental illness, and he had made several mistakes when representing himself in the past. Defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Rodriguez
...the result dictated by law is contrary to [each] juror's sense of justice, morality, or fairness." People v. Waller , 2016 COA 115, ¶ 57, 412 P.3d 866 (quoting State v. Nicholas , 185 Wash.App. 298, 341 P.3d 1013, 1015 (2014) ). Jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant even......
-
People v. West
...a defendant’s right to self-representation, structural error results, and we must reverse. See People v. Waller , 2016 COA 115, ¶ 23, 412 P.3d 866, 872 (stating that structural error, and not harmless error analysis, applies to the denial of the right to self-representation).B. Applicable L......
-
People v. Lavadie
...a defendant's right to self-representation, structural error results, and we must reverse. See People v. Waller , 2016 COA 115, ¶ 23, 412 P.3d 866 (stating that structural error, and not harmless error analysis, applies to the denial of the right to self-representation).B. Constitutional Ri......
-
People v. Scott
...the result dictated by law is contrary to [each] juror's sense of justice, morality, or fairness." People v. Waller , 2016 COA 115, ¶ 57, 412 P.3d 866 (quoting State v. Nicholas , 185 Wash.App. 298, 341 P.3d 1013, 1015 (2014) ). Jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant even......