People v. Ward
Decision Date | 13 February 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 4-90-0386,4-90-0386 |
Citation | 208 Ill.App.3d 1073,567 N.E.2d 642 |
Parties | , 153 Ill.Dec. 684 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen WARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, Office of State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Jon McPhee, Asst. Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Donald D. Bernardi, State's Atty., Pontiac, Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, Donna Dagnall, Staff Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
After a jury trial, defendant, Stephen Ward, was found guilty of aggravated battery on a corrections officer (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 38, par. 12-4(b)(6)) and sentenced to an extended term of 10 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues that he was denied his sixth amendment right to conduct his own defense. We agree and reverse.
In October 1989, an indictment charged defendant with two counts of aggravated battery. On November 14, 1989, defendant, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, appeared before the court for the first time on that indictment and was advised, inter alia, that he had the right to be represented by counsel and that if he could not afford to hire an attorney of his own choice, someone would be appointed to represent him, namely, the public defender. When defendant responded that he did not want a public defender, but "would appreciate a bar association [lawyer]," the court replied that defendant did not have the choice of who his appointed counsel would be. The court explained to defendant that the county had a public defender who had the responsibility to represent accused people such as defendant. Defendant continued to object to the public defender's appointment, explaining that, The court explained again that under the law, defendant had no choice as to who his appointed lawyer would be, stating, "You can refuse a lawyer all together [sic ], but you don't have a choice * * *." Defendant responded, "If it comes to that, that's what I'll do then." The court appointed the public defender anyway and recommended to defendant that he at least speak to his court-appointed counsel before he decided whether to have that counsel represent him. The court then continued the matter for a few days.
On November 22, 1989, defendant next appeared in court, and the public defender appeared as his counsel. Defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and the case was set for trial in January 1990. Counsel filed various discovery motions on defendant's behalf, and they were granted.
On December 22, 1989, defendant appeared in court and complained about the public defender's representation. After listening to these complaints, the trial court found no deficiencies in counsel's representation. Defendant continued to indicate that he had a problem with his court-appointed counsel, saying, "I don't feel comfortable with him." After further discussion, the trial court told defendant that his choices were either to continue with the court-appointed counsel, to hire a private lawyer, or to represent himself as his own lawyer. When defendant continued to complain and indicated that maybe he should represent himself, the court said that there was no need to make a final decision at that hearing and that they could talk about the matter again in January.
On January 8, 1990, a hearing was conducted on defendant's motion for a change of place of trial, which was filed by his court-appointed counsel, and the motion was denied. Thereafter, the trial court inquired of defendant regarding his court-appointed counsel, and defendant responded that his position was the same as when he was last in court, namely, that he wanted a different lawyer appointed for him. The court again explained that it was not going to take that action, stating that it could discharge defendant's court-appointed counsel, but that would leave defendant with only two options: first, that he represent himself; or second, that he or his family hire a private attorney to represent him. Defendant responded that he did not have the resources to do that. Defendant then stated, The matter was continued for trial until February, and the court concluded the proceedings by again informing defendant that it had no reason to discharge his court-appointed counsel.
On February 13, 1990, a different representative of the public defender's office appeared on behalf of defendant. In conversation with the trial court, defendant indicated that he did not like his new court-appointed attorney any better than the previous one, explaining that the court had "to understand it is not my fault because I am getting a wicked lawyer." After further discussion with the court, defendant said that he would file a motion to represent himself, "but I am not going to be held accountable for anything that goes wrong in the case because I don't know anything about the law." In response, the court said that defendant had the right to make the request and a constitutional right to defend himself, but "I would strongly try and discourage anybody from doing that." The following colloquy then took place:
If you are going to represent yourself, I need to know some things.
How far have you gone in school?
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jackson
...at trial. Id.; People v. Woodson, 2011 IL App (4th) 100223, ¶ 24, 355 Ill.Dec. 260, 959 N.E.2d 674 ; People v. Ward, 208 Ill.App.3d 1073, 1082, 153 Ill.Dec. 684, 567 N.E.2d 642 (1991). The United States Supreme Court specifically rejected that inquiry. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 836, 95 S.Ct. 252......
-
People v. Perkins
...resolve the question of whether defendant can make an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel." People v. Ward , 208 Ill. App. 3d 1073, 1084, 153 Ill.Dec. 684, 567 N.E.2d 642 (1991).¶ 48 The record shows that at the time defendant made the request to represent himself, the trial court wa......
-
Jones v. Steele
...grade education); State v. Nicolosi, 588 S.W.2d 152, 157 (Mo.Ct.App.1979) (fourth grade education); People v. Ward, 208 Ill.App.3d 1073, 153 Ill.Dec. 684, 567 N.E.2d 642, 644-49 (1991) (tenth grade education); State v. Milton, 705 N.W.2d 107, 2005 WL 1630040 (Iowa Ct.App. July 13, 2005) (el......
-
People v. Hunt, 1–13–2979.
...of counsel. People v. Rohlfs, 368 Ill.App.3d 540, 545, 306 Ill.Dec. 819, 858 N.E.2d 616 (2006) (citing People v. Ward, 208 Ill.App.3d 1073, 1084, 153 Ill.Dec. 684, 567 N.E.2d 642 (1991) ). On review, the trial court's decision on a defendant's election to represent himself will be reversed ......