State v. Lee
| Citation | 637 S.W.3d 446 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD 83778 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary Dale LEE, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Daniel N. McPherson, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Damien De Loyola, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and James E. Welsh, Senior Judge
Gary Dale Lee ("Lee") appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of statutory rape in the second degree. Lee challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and also argues that the trial court committed legal error when it denied his assertion of his right of self-representation. Because Lee made a timely, unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent request to represent himself, the trial court erred by denying Lee's request, requiring Lee's judgment of conviction and sentence to be reversed, and this matter to be remanded for a new trial.
In 2016, Lee and T.G. ("Victim") began dating. Victim was born on June 10, 2000, and turned sixteen on June 10, 2016. Lee was born on December 20, 1973. In 2016 and 2017, Lee and Victim engaged in sexual intercourse twenty or thirty times.
In early February 2017, a woman from Victim's church arrived at Victim's residence to give her a ride. The woman witnessed Victim and Lee engage in a passionate kiss after which Lee told the woman to "take good care of my girl." The woman reported what she witnessed to police.
On October 18, 2017, Detective John Roach ("Detective Roach") interviewed Lee. Lee admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Victim when she was sixteen, and that Victim told him she was sixteen.
The State charged Lee by information with two counts of statutory rape in the second degree in violation of section 566.034.2 The information was later amended to charge Lee as a prior and persistent offender due to his prior felony convictions for possession of a controlled substance, statutory sodomy in the first degree, and assault in the second degree. In the amended information, the State alleged in Count I that Lee had sexual intercourse with Victim on or between November 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, and in Count II that Lee had sexual intercourse with Victim on or between January 1, 2017 and June 9, 2017.
Lee was represented by appointed counsel at a trial conducted on May 28 and 29, 2019. That trial ended in a mistrial. Lee's trial was rescheduled to begin on January 21, 2020.
On September 23, 2019, Lee filed a motion seeking to discharge his appointed counsel and to represent himself at trial ("Motion").3 Lee's Motion stated:
On October 9, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Lee's Motion. Lee indicated that he still wished to waive his right to the assistance of counsel and to exercise his right to represent himself. The trial court informed Lee that it needed to ask him some questions about his request, and that depending on Lee's answers, the trial court would then rule on his Motion. Because the trial court's inquiry of Lee is central to our resolution of this appeal, the salient portions of the inquiry, though lengthy, are set forth below:
Lee was then sworn in and the trial court explained to him the rights that would be implicated by his waiver of counsel:
Lee then affirmatively acknowledged that he had been charged with two counts of statutory rape in the second degree and that the trial court had found him to be a prior and persistent felony offender. When asked whether he understood what that meant, Lee stated, "That means the sentencing guidelines for the charges that I'm charged with enhance to a B and a C instead of a C and a D." The trial court replied, Lee indicated that he understood. The trial court informed Lee as to Count II:
The trial court then recited the elements for Counts I and II and Lee indicated that he understood that the State would have to prove those elements. The trial court explained the jury selection process:
A number of potential jurors will be assembled in the courtroom. The State will ask the panel of potential jurors questions about their ability to be fair and impartial in this case, and you will have the opportunity to do the same. At the conclusion of these questions, both you and the State will be given an opportunity to ask the Court to strike certain potential jurors from serving on this case if their answers indicate that any of them are biased or cannot be fair and impartial.... And both the State and you will be given the opportunity to choose six jurors to strike from the panel, which will result in [twelve] jurors and one alternate.
Lee indicated that he understood and that he did not have any questions. The trial court continued, explaining that both Lee and the State would have the opportunity to make opening statements, present evidence, and then make closing arguments at the end of evidence, which Lee responded that he understood. Lee indicated that he understood that both he and the State could make objections to questions asked during jury selection and during the presentation of evidence, and that in order to do so, the party must state that they have an objection, approach the bench, state the objection to the trial court, and that the trial court would make a ruling. Again, the trial court asked if Lee had any questions and whether he understood the process, and Lee indicated that he did not have questions, and that he understood. The trial court continued:
To continue reading
Request your trial