State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 23 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 98,571.,98,571. |
| Citation | 201 P.3d 710,40 Kan. App. 2d 1146 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Alfonzal JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Lydia Krebs, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Cathy A. Eaton, assistant district attorney, Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Stephen N. Six, attorney general, for appellee.
Before McANANY, P.J., BUSER and LEBEN, JJ.
Alfonzal Jones appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated kidnapping and rape. First, Jones appeals the district court's denial of his motion to represent himself at the preliminary hearing. Second, Jones claims the district court erroneously admitted prejudicial testimony. Third, Jones contends the jury instructions were improper. Fourth, Jones claims the district court erred in its response to the jury's question during deliberations. Finally, Jones contends his constitutional rights were violated when the district court enhanced his sentences based on a criminal history that was not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
On December 28, 2005, W.H. was driving her automobile when a van driven by Jones rammed the side of her vehicle causing it to travel off the roadway. W.H. was the former fiancée of Jones. Jones jumped from the van and ran towards W.H.'s automobile holding a handgun. Seeing Jones, W.H. accelerated, violated a stop sign, and collided with a truck driven by James Flores.
After Flores stepped out of his truck, he observed Jones point a handgun at W.H.'s head, grab her hair, and yell at her to get out of the automobile. Jones threatened to kill W.H. while asking, "Why did [you] do this to me[?]" W.H. thought Jones was asking her why she had left him and recently had filed a Protection From Abuse Act (PFA) petition regarding him. A hearing on the petition had been scheduled for later that day.
After Jones forcibly removed W.H. from her vehicle, he noticed Flores nearby. Flores testified that Jones pointed the handgun at him. Flores retreated as Jones dragged W.H. away by her hair and neck. W.H. was screaming during this encounter.
Jones took W.H. to a friend's apartment in a nearby building. At trial, W.H. testified that Jones yelled at her, asked her why she broke his heart, and threatened to kill her. Then, he told her to undress. W.H. testified that she engaged in sexual relations to avoid getting hurt and in the hope she could later escape. W.H. eventually left the apartment after Jones' friend, who was to prevent her from leaving, fell asleep.
A jury convicted Jones of aggravated kidnapping and rape. He was acquitted of the aggravated assault of Flores. Jones timely appealed.
Jones seeks reversal of his convictions because he contends the district court improperly denied his motion for self-representation and insisted that counsel represent him at the preliminary hearing. In order to review this contention, it is necessary to summarize the pretrial proceedings.
At the hearing on the motions, court-appointed defense counsel noted that Jones had been found competent to stand trial, a result she characterized as "amazing." Defense counsel commented that she was
The district court commented on "the loud discussion just a little while ago through the walls" and indicated knowledge of "the previous problems in front of Judge Burns." The district court cautioned Jones to act respectfully in the courtroom and asked Jones about his formal education and legal training. Jones replied that he had a GED and he had studied law books for the past 10 years.
The district judge denied the motion for self-representation by stating, Jones objected to the ruling, but the preliminary hearing was conducted with court-appointed counsel representing Jones.
Less than 2 months later, on October 6, 2006, another district judge conducted a pretrial motions hearing. Jones was asked whether he still wanted to represent himself. Jones replied, "I want to be able to participate in my defense." The district court informed Jones that he could either accept his attorney's representation, placing her in charge of how the defense was conducted, or Jones could represent himself and his counsel would be on "standby." The district court advised Jones that if he represented himself he would be held to the same standard as a practicing attorney. Jones replied, "I want to represent myself."
The district court, after referencing federal and state case law, then engaged in an extended and detailed colloquy with Jones to determine if his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. First, the district court explained that Jones' attorney was experienced in handling criminal trials. Next, he gave extensive warnings about the dangers of self-representation. In particular, the district court advised Jones that he would be required to follow the rules of criminal procedure, especially with regard to direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and that the court would not provide him with legal advice. Jones was also told that by representing himself he would give up the right to later claim ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court and Jones' counsel provided Jones with a copy of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines relevant to the charges. An extensive discussion ensued regarding the possible sentences which could be imposed, given Jones' criminal history, if he was convicted of the charges. The district court also asked about Jones' knowledge of possible affirmative defenses or mitigating evidence.
Towards the end of the colloquy Jones advised the district court, "Well, your Honor, I'll go ahead and let her [defense counsel] represent me." The district court confirmed that Jones was not going to change his mind later. Jones told the district court, "Yeah, that motion is withdrawn." Jones was represented by counsel at trial and posttrial proceedings.
On appeal, Jones contends the district court violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by summarily denying his motion to represent himself at the preliminary hearing. Jones complains that at the preliminary hearing, the district court did not obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel as set forth in State v. Lowe, 18 Kan.App.2d 72, Syl. ¶ 1, 847 P.2d 1334 (1993). The State admits "the court may not have made the appropriate inquiry at the preliminary hearing."
"The Sixth Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that a defendant in a state criminal trial has an independent constitutional right to self-representation." State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782, Syl. ¶ 2, 127 P.3d 307 (2006). 280 Kan. 782, Syl. ¶ 3, 127 P.3d 307.
Jones clearly expressed a desire to waive counsel and represent himself at the preliminary hearing. We agree with the parties that the district court erred by failing to inform Jones of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation in order to insure that Jones made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel at the preliminary hearing. Moreover, the district court violated Jones' right to self-representation at the preliminary hearing by requiring him to be represented by counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 818-20, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Vann, 280 Kan. 782, Syl. ¶¶ 2-3, 127 P.3d 307.
The principal issue before us, then, is the remedy. Jones asks us to reverse his convictions, arguing that the denial of his right to self-representation at the preliminary hearing was "structural, and not subject to a `harmless error' analysis." Jones concedes that after the preliminary hearing, he later "acquiesced to representation by counsel at trial. (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, Jones argues that his "subsequent decision to allow counsel to represent him at trial did not cure the error."
It should be noted that Jones does not contend the denial of his right to self-representation at the preliminary hearing had any effect on his trial. He simply points to the error at the preliminary hearing and asks for reversal of his convictions. In response, the State maintains that Jones' subsequent knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to self-representation prior to trial renders harmless the denial of the right to self-representation at the preliminary hearing.
In reviewing this issue we must ask whether this is one of the "`very limited class of cases'" subject to "automatic reversal" due to a "['structural'] defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself." Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468, 137 L.Ed.2d 718, 117 S.Ct. 1544 [1997]; Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 111 S.Ct. 1246 [1991]). "The determination of whether an error is structural or harmless involves a question of law subject to unlimited review." City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Jones, 98
-
State v. Jones, No. 98,571 (Kan. 4/15/2010), 98,571.
...Sixth Amendment right to counsel is subject to structural error analysis. Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 40 Kan. App. 2d 1146, 201 P.3d 710 (2009). Appeal from Wyandotte district court; JOHN J. MCNALLY and THOMAS L. BOEDING, judges. Opinion filed April 15, 2010. The judgm......
- State v. Bass