Wilkins v. State, SD 29954.
| Decision Date | 28 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 29954.,SD 29954. |
| Parties | Courtney D. WILKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
308 SW 3d 778
Courtney D. WILKINS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. SD 29954.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
April 28, 2010.
Mark A. Grothoff, Columbia, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Jamie Pamela Rasmussen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.
Courtney D. Wilkins ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial following an evidentiary hearing of his postconviction relief motion filed pursuant to Rule 29.15.1 In his sole point on appeal, Movant, who was granted the right to represent himself at trial, maintains he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his previously appointed counsel in that his counsel "failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney ... by failing to conduct an adequate investigation and failing to adequately prepare for trial...." He asserts such ineffective assistance prejudiced him and "ultimately forced Movant to proceed pro se to trial unprepared and without necessary evidence and witnesses." We affirm the judgment and findings of the motion court.
The record reveals Movant was arrested on November 18, 2002, and he was thereafter charged with the following crimes: one count of the unclassified felony of forcible rape, a violation of section 566.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.2006; one count of the Class A felony of kidnapping, a violation of section 565.110; and one count of the Class B felony of assault in the first degree, a violation of section 565.050.2 Attorney Rod Hackathorn ("Attorney Hackathorn") was appointed to represent Movant on November 27, 2002, and he represented Movant at the preliminary hearing on these charges. On January 22, 2003, Attorney Michaelle Tobin ("Attorney Tobin") entered
In February of 2003, Movant filed several pro se motions despite the fact that he was being represented by Attorney Tobin. Then in March of 2003, he filed a "Motion to Dismiss or Withdraw Appointed Counsel" in which he insisted he would not accept an attorney from the public defender's office because such attorneys "employ practices that would prevent Movant from receiving effective assistance of counsel and a future appointment of counsel from that office will prevent Movant from receiving a fair and impartial trial." He also filed a "Motion to Proceed Pro Se" on June 10, 2003.
The trial court held a hearing on these pro se motions on July 7, 2003, and Movant related at that hearing that his appointed counsel had only spoken with him on two occasions and had not properly investigated his case as he had requested. The trial court discussed with Movant the dangerous nature of a defendant proceeding to a jury trial pro se and ultimately denied all of Movant's pro se motions.
Movant then filed another motion to proceed pro se on October 14, 2003, and a hearing was held on this matter on October 28, 2003. At the hearing, Movant again complained about Attorney Tobin's lack of investigation and her choice of trial strategies; however, he did admit that he had met with her a number of times since the last hearing. Further, Attorney Tobin informed the trial court that she had tracked down six of the seven witnesses recommended to her by Movant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Movant's motion to proceed pro se.
On May 12, 2004, Movant filed a "Motion to Withdraw" in which he requested the trial court dismiss Attorney Tobin as his counsel. This was followed on July 28, 2004, by another motion to proceed pro se; thereafter, on November 22, 2004, Attorney Tobin filed a motion to withdraw as Movant's counsel. A hearing was held on these motions on November 24, 2004. The trial court examined Movant about his desire to proceed pro se and Movant asserted he wanted to proceed pro se because he was more familiar with the facts of his case than Attorney Tobin was; he understood the charges against him and the procedures involved in a jury trial; he understood he would be signing a written waiver of counsel and agreed to do so; he knew what it meant to be charged as a prior offender and he was aware of the possible sentences he might incur; he had no mental defects or other issues that would affect his abilities to represent himself; he understood he would have to follow the procedural rules of evidence as an attorney is required to do; and he understood how juries were selected, that he would have to call his own witnesses, and that he had the right to object to evidence offered by the State. He informed the trial court that he had an associates degree in paralegal studies and asserted he understood that if he were convicted he could not bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against himself. The trial court then found Movant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel; permitted Attorney Tobin to withdraw; and appointed the public defender's office "to act as standby counsel, to be available to represent Movant in the event that Movant so requests or the court finds it necessary to terminate Movant's self-representation."
Thereafter, Movant filed numerous motions in which he sought help with his defense including a "Request to Modify Order of Standby Counsel and Request to Compel Request to Modify Order of Standby Counsel." A hearing was held on January 7, 2005, at which time Movant informed the trial court that he wanted
On January 27, 2005, Movant filed a pro se motion requesting the trial court reconsider its ruling on his request to modify the order for standby counsel. A hearing was held on this matter on February 2, 2005. The trial court interpreted Movant's requests in his motion as a request for the reappointment of counsel and the trial court reappointed the public defender's office to represent Movant.
The following week, on February 14, 2005, Movant filed yet another motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial