Patton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KP-01699-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-13-2010 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: False pretenses - Waiver of right to counsel - URCCC 8.05 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Kitchens, J., Specially Concurs with Separate Written Opinion Joined by Dickinson, J.; Graves, P.J., Joins in Part. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-05-2008 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: Edgar Patton was indicted for the crime of false pretenses. He unsuccessfully represented himself in the trial court. He appeals, claiming as one of nine assignments of error that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: K06-0198P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Edgar Patton |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | False pretenses - Waiver of right to counsel - URCCC 8.05 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edgar Patton was convicted of false pretenses. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Patton argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A criminal defendant’s waiver of counsel is insufficient unless — prior to accepting the waiver — the trial court determines it was knowingly and intelligently made. According to the mandatory provisions of URCCC 8.05, the trial judge in this case was required to advise Patton — on the record — of his rights and the warnings set forth in the rule. Then, having set forth those rights and warnings, and having made sure Patton understood them, the trial judge was required to ascertain if Patton still wished to proceed pro se, or if he wanted an attorney to assist him in his defense. If, after being advised of the rights and warnings as required by the rule, Patton still wished to proceed pro se, the court was required to determine whether Patton’s waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. And all of this should have been on the record. If Patton — having been fully informed of the matters set forth in the rule — waived his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel, then the court was required to consider whether Patton needed an attorney to assist on procedure and protocol, even though he did not desire an attorney to try his case. The record shows that the trial judge in this case wholly failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8.05. There is no evidence in the record that Patton was warned of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Thus, Patton did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
