State v. Murray
| Decision Date | 15 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 101145,ED 101145 |
| Citation | 469 S.W.3d 921 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lance Murray, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market St., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Appellant Lance Murray (“Murray”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a jury verdict. The jury found Murray guilty on three counts: first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, and first-degree tampering. Before trial began, Murray filed a motion to proceed pro se. The trial court granted Murray's motion. On appeal, Murray argues that the trial court erred in granting his motion to proceed pro se. Because Murray made a timely, unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Murray was charged with first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, and first-degree tampering. The charges stemmed from the robbery of a White Castle at gun point and the subsequent fleeing of the scene in a stolen minivan. Murray received counsel from the Missouri State Public Defender. On January 31, 2013, counsel entered her appearance on behalf of Murray and began conducting discovery.
On August 15, 2013, Murray filed his first motion to terminate counsel and proceed pro se. The criminal-assignment judge interviewed Murray and decided that Murray was not competent to represent himself.1 On October 15, 2013, Murray filed another motion to proceed pro se. The trial court heard that motion on the trial date the following week.
When the trial court asked for background information on Murray's motion to proceed pro se, Murray explained that he was dissatisfied with his counsel. Murray believed counsel showed a “lack of interest” every time they met and that counsel did not have Murray's “best interest at heart.” Murray stated:
I know under—I have a right under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution to pro se, and I believe—and I did—Your Honor, I did carefully consider this. And I believe—and I know I can represent myself I do not want [counsel] representing me at all.
Murray assured the trial court that At the time, Murray had not seen the surveillance video. Murray believed the surveillance video would prove his innocence.
The trial court began examining Murray under oath. Murray reiterated that he wanted to represent himself. Murray said, The court responded that, while Murray could watch the surveillance video, the court could not guarantee any other assistance: “you either want to go on your own or you don't,” Murray responded “I will be ready to go.” The court warned Murray that he was facing serious charges and that representing himself was a mistake; Murray replied that he did not trust his attorney and he did not want anyone to represent him. Next, the court confirmed that Murray could read and write, and that Murray had a 12th grade education.
The court reviewed the range of punishment for the charged crimes. Murray understood that first-degree robbery and armed criminal action carried potential life sentences, but mistakenly believed that first-degree tampering carried a 20–year sentence, when in fact the maximum sentence is seven years. Murray stated that he understood the judge would sentence him as a prior offender; that armed criminal action carried a minimum sentence of three years in prison; that he would serve at least 85% of a potential robbery sentence; that he would likely receive prison time if he was found guilty; and that his appointed counsel was ready and able to represent him for free. The court warned Murray that technical rules of procedure and evidence applied to him and that he would not receive help from the court or the prosecutor. The court said, “[y]ou understand that if you ... get fouled up by the rules of procedure, you will be much worse off than if you had a lawyer?” Murray acknowledged that he understood.
The court proceeded to ask Murray about the legal elements of the case:
The court explained the hazards of mishandling procedural issues, such as objections. Murray responded:
I won't use objections the wrong way, because there are certain things—some things is people—people will say, they really don't make sense. I'll let—certain things I will let just pass me by anyway, because some things, if I don't understand, the jury don't understand them. If they're using big words, big old fancy words, God can't understand. Believe me, most likely he don't understand either.
Murray believed he was competent. The court warned: The court explained that rules of evidence could keep Murray's evidence out, that certain issues would be lost if not raised, and that Murray's actions in front of the jury could prejudice his case. Murray said he understood the dangers and still wanted to represent himself.
The court asked if Murray had any defenses. Murray responded, The court inquired about Murray's mental health, to which Murray responded: Murray gave a long response including his use of drugs, which he does not do anymore because God made him better. The court warned that Murray would not be able to come back to court and complain that his lawyer was inadequate. The court asked:
The court asked if Murray had jury instructions. Murray said he would “let [the court] do that.” The court again warned:
Well, that's another issue, because that's—there are some jury instructions that the court gives automatically. There are others that only the defendant can ask for, or that the state asks for and the defendant objects. So if you don't know anything about jury instructions, you've got another problem.
After a brief recess for Murray to watch the surveillance video, the court accepted Murray's signed memorandum waiving his right to counsel. After Murray indicated he had no questions about the waiver, Murray confirmed that he still wished to represent himself. The court found that Murray was fully informed of and understood his right to assistance of counsel, and that Murray was literate and mentally competent. The court also found Murray “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently” waived his right to counsel with full knowledge of the consequences and the effect of the waiver. Murray proceeded to trial pro se, with his original counsel retained as “standby counsel.” Standby counsel sat inside the bar in the event Murray had a question, but not at counsel table.
After trial, the jury convicted Murray on all counts: first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, and first-degree tampering. The trial court sentenced Murray to fifteen years, three years, and two years, respectively, in prison. The three sentences were run consecutively to each other, for a total of twenty years in prison. This appeal follows.
In his sole point on appeal, Murray contends that the trial court erred in allowing Murray to represent himself pro se during trial. Murray argues that the court did not adequately advise him about possible defenses, and did not overrule his request despite demonstrating fundamental misunderstandings about the trial process.
A constitutional claim must be made at the first opportunity to be preserved for review. State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109, 117 (Mo. banc 2008). While no objection was raised during trial, we cannot expect Murray to file an objection to his own motion in order to preserve this issue for appeal. After trial, standby counsel filed a motion for new trial alleging the trial court erred in allowing Murray to proceed pro se. Since standby counsel raised the issue in the motion for new trial, this was the first opportunity. Thus, the issue was preserved. Appellate review of the factors constituting a valid waiver of the right to c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sullivan
...to forego counsel and represent him or herself pro se. State v. Davis , 580 S.W.3d 26, 32 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) ; State v. Murray , 469 S.W.3d 921, 926 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (both citing Faretta , 422 U.S. at 814, 95 S.Ct. 2525 ). For a waiver of counsel to be effective, however, due process ......
-
State v. Lee
...right to self-representation. Lee filed his Motion on September 23, 2019, four months before his trial began. See State v. Murray , 469 S.W.3d 921, 926 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). His request to proceed pro se was unequivocal. In his motion, Lee relied on Faretta v. California and State v. Black ......
-
State v. Bolden
...error is unpreserved. "A constitutional claim must be made at the first opportunity to be preserved for review." State v. Murray, 469 S.W.3d 921, 925 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (citing State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109, 117 (Mo. banc 2008) ). This Court has held that we cannot expect a defendant t......
-
State v. Davis
...We disagree."A constitutional claim must be made at the first opportunity to be preserved for appellate review." State v. Murray , 469 S.W.3d 921, 925 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). We do not expect, however, a defendant who has requested to represent himself to object to the voluntariness of his wa......