01-2201 State v. Coleman

Listen to this article

Although the State argues that defendant had forfeited his right to conduct by his uncooperative behavior, we disagree.

“[T]here is no suggestion in the record that Coleman discharged his attorney for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. Further, even if a mental element is not required, we do not agree with the State that this record supports the extreme remedy of forfeiting Coleman’s constitutional right to counsel. …

“Here, the trial court made no inquiries into the nature and intent of Coleman’s conduct before requiring that Coleman proceed without counsel. [Citation] The court did not specifically warn Coleman that if he continued to fire his attorneys, his right to counsel would be forfeited. The court did not conduct a colloquy to determine that Coleman understood the difficulties of proceeding without counsel and there was not a clear ruling that Coleman had forfeited his right to counsel.”

Further, the court did not inquire or make a finding whether defendant was competent to represent himself.

Reversed and remanded with directions

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Eau Claire County, Wahl, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Margarita Van Nuland, La Crosse

For Respondent: Raymond L. Pelrine, Eau Claire; Gregory M. Weber, Madison