State v. Paige, Minn.Ct.App., 5/12/2009. Mr. Paige retrained private counsel to represent him on these murder charges; he eventually plead guilty to second degree murder. Before sentencing, Mr. Paige sent a letter to the trial judge, asking to discharge his attorney, and to withdraw his guilty plea. To the discharge request, the trial court said, no, not unless you have another attorney waiting in the wings to commence representing you. The trial court relied on the rule that governs attorney withdrawal in a criminal case, Minn.Gen.R.Pract. 703, which prevents the court from acting on the withdrawal request unless defendant already had another attorney in place to substitute in as counsel.
The trial court, however, improperly relied on this rule, which says nothing about a defendant's ability to fire his lawyer. Rather, the trial court must ascertain just how a defendant wishes to proceed after firing counsel; with that knowledge, the trial court then determines whether the request is appropriate. Mr. Paige gets a redo on his request to discharge counsel.
The trial court also denied the request to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court's first ruling had the additional result of leaving Mr. Paige high and dry during his sentencing hearing. This was because Mr. Paige wanted to fire his lawyer because he believed that counsel had been ineffective. Counsel, in turn, was reluctant to do anything in the way or advocating for Mr. Paige at sentencing so Mr. Paige effectively had no counsel for that hearing. The appellate court concluded that the trial court should have recognized the existence of a potential conflict of interest and dealt with it, such as by securing new counsel. Mr. Paige gets to go back and be heard on his plea withdrawal motion as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment