State v. Mode
| Decision Date | 03 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35163,35163 |
| Citation | 349 P.2d 727,55 Wn.2d 706 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Melvin MODE, Appellant. |
Melvin Mode pro se.
Wayne Roethler, Pros. Atty., Cowlitz County, Kelso, for respondent.
This matter is before the court upon (1) the motion of the prosecuting attorney of Cowlitz county to dismiss appellant's appeal and to affirm the original judgment and sentence, or, in the alternative, to strike appellant's brief; and (2) appellant's motion for an extension of time in which to file proper briefs, and for appointment of counsel.
Appellant was represented at trial by two court-appointed counsel. After a verdict of guilty on two counts charging carnal knowledge, the superior court of Cowlitz county entered judgment and sentence on April 3, 1959.
April 29, 1959, appellant filed a written notice of appeal.
May 19, 1959, a third attorney was appointed by the superior court to represent appellant in an appeal to this court. From his affidavit dated June 5, 1959, it appears (Italics ours.)
June 2, 1959, the clerk of the supreme court received and filed a 'Motion and Affidavit for Order Permitting Defendant to Appeal in Forma Pauperis.' The affidavit, dated May 28, 1959, is signed by defendant (appellant) and acknowledged by counsel appointed to prosecute the appeal. It states, among other things,
'* * * that affiant is without funds with which to employ counsel to represent him on said appeal, and counsel has been appointed for this purpose.' (Italics ours.)
It was not disclosed to the chief justice (the writer of this opinion) that counsel appointed to prosecute the appeal
'* * * was so discharged by the court on June 1, 1959, subject only to the completion and transmittal to the Supreme Court of a Petition on behalf of the defendant praying that he be allowed to appeal in Forma Pauperis, which petition was transmitted on June 1, 1959.'
June 2, 1959, the chief justice granted appellant's application to proceed in this court in forma pauperis. Rule on Appeal 47, RCW, Vol. O, effective January 2, 1951.
The prosecuting attorney for Cowlitz county states in his brief that the superior court then proceeded pursuant to the rules we announced in Woods v. Rhay, Wash.1959, 338 P.2d 332, and, on June 9, 1959, entered an order that recited
'* * * that Counsel has been appointed for the purpose of representing the defendant upon the appeal of this cause, but that the defendant has declined counsel and has manifested his intention to prosecute his own appeal, without assistance of counsel * * *.'
The order further states
'* * * [T]hat defendant be, and he hereby is granted, at public expense, a complete transcript of the proceedings in this cause, said transcript to be prepared by the court reporter.' (Italics ours.)
The order also extended, by thirty days, the time for filing the statement of facts. Pursuant to this order, a two-volume statement of facts, containing two hundred and seventy-seven pages prepared at county expense, was certified and filed June 29, 1959.
Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 101.24W, RCW, Vol. O (154 Wash.Dec., No. 24, p. 83), provides:
'Whenever a trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, authorizes the expenditure of county funds on behalf of an indigent defendant to perfect a review by the supreme court, he shall, at the same time, appoint a member of the bar of this state to represent said defendant on said review, unless the defendant is represented other than pro se.'
In so far as the record before us discloses, counsel appointed to prosecute this appeal was relieved of his duties by the court on June 1, 1959, eight days before the court authorized the transcription of a statement of facts at county expense; hence, Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 101.24W was not followed.
The purpose of rule 101.24W is at least three-fold: First, it is to furnish indigents with competent, technical help in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rafay
...assertion that state common law forecloses a constitutional right of self-representation on appeal, the State cites State v. Mode, 55 Wash.2d 706, 709, 349 P.2d 727 (1960), which emphasizes the value of having counsel on appeal. State's Suppl. Br. at 7-8. But the court in Mode did not addre......
-
State v. Mode
...and twenty years respectively. The sentences are concurrent. The state's motion to dismiss the appeal was denied in State v. Mode, 55 Wash.2d 706, 349 P.2d 727, at which time we directed the superior court to appoint counsel to prosecute this For ten years appellant lived with Mrs. L___, wh......
-
State v. Keller
...incompetent counsel. The instant case is no exception to the general pattern we see developing. As was their right (State v. Mode, 55 Wash.2d 706, 710, 349 P.2d 727 (1960)), defendants supplemented the efforts of their appellate counsel by filing a reply brief in which they '* * * take the ......
-
State v. Jones
...the way in which his counsel were proceeding, it would be his privilege to supplement their efforts on his behalf. See State v. Mode, 1960, 55 Wash.2d 706, 349 P.2d 727, in which the necessity for courtappointed counsel on an appeal is discussed. Further, he would be permitted to argue his ......
-
Table of Cases
...9 Wn. App. 213, 511 P.2d 1383 (1973): 11.7(9)(b) State v. Moavenzadeh, 135 Wn.2d 359, 956 P.2d 1097 (1998): 11.7(9)(a) State v. Mode, 55 Wn.2d 706, 349 P.2d 727 (1960): 14.13(1) State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d 535, 919 P.2d 69 (1996): 11.7(9)(a), 11.7(9)(b), 24.5(1)(f) State v. Monday, 171 Wn.2d 6......
-
§ 14.13 Statement of Additional Grounds for Review
...briefs. (1) Historical background Washington has allowed the filing of pro se briefs in criminal cases since at least 1960. State v. Mode, 55 Wn.2d 706, 709-10, 349 P.2d 727 (1960). The appellate rules have formally authorized pro se briefs in criminal appeals since 1966. See Former ROA 46(......