State of Maine v. Black

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 6, 2009
DocketKENcr-09-22
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Black (State of Maine v. Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Black, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CRINIINAL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. CR-09-22 )111~ \ I ,.. 1"/ . . . . ('I ~/v!J--'L/,- 7 / iP/d'<-'~;. ! •

STATE OF MAINE

v. DECISION

WILLIAM BLACK,

Defendant

Before the court is the defendant's motion to strike prior convictions.

The defendant was indicted on an Operating Under Influence charge (class C)

based on three or more alleged prior OUI offenses. The State alleges four prior OUI

offenses. However, the defendant is challenging one conviction on July 28, 1999

(WATDC-CR-99-2137) and another conviction on April 25, 2001 (WATDC-CR-01-170).

The defendant pled guilty to both above offenses. The defendant asserts that he

was not represented by counsel during these convictions and did not knowingly or

intelligently waive his right to counsel.

Discussion

It is well established that the defendant has a right to counsel at all critical stages

of the criminal process. A waiver of that right must be voluntary, knowing, and

intelligent. Absent a waiver, the

lithe Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void."

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.s. 458, 468 (1938).

The Johnson court articulated a strong presumption against the waiver of the

fundamental constitutional right of right to counsel. The Maine case of State v. O~tlette, 2

901 A.2d 800 (Me. 2006) asserts that the court cannot assume the regularity of the

arraignment process or that the defendant had been advised of his right to be

represented by counsel. See also State v. Watson, 900 A.2d 702 (Me. 2006).

In this case, it is not clear whether the defendant was represented by counsel on a

conviction occurring in 2001 in Waterville District Court. The State has presented

evidence indicating that the defendant was represented by M. Dolly, acting as attorney

for the day. The court records for that conviction does not indicate that the defendant

was represented by anyone, not even the attorney for the day. Even if M. Dolly was

involved as the attorney for the day, the State v. Oulette case makes it clear that this is

not enough. In Oulette, the defendant met with the attorney for the day and the court

stated:

"We cannot presume, as we did in Gordon, that the attorney fulfill the duty of notifying Gulette about her constitutional rights, including her right to a jury triaL"

Oulette, at 809.

Since there is no transcript of the proceeding relative to the 2001 conviction and

since there is no evidence other than some evidence that the defendant was represented

by the lawyer for the day, the court finds that the defendant has proved that the

evidence does not establish that the defendant competently and intelligently waived his

constitutional right to assistance of counsel.

With regard to the 1999 conviction, the docket sheet indicates that the defendant

was not represented at all. Furthermore, there was an indication on the docket sheet

(State's Ex. 2), that the defendant waived his right to counsel. This entry was made by

the trial judge. This finding by the trial judge at the arraignment is evidence of the fact

that the defendant waived his right to counsel. In the Johnson case, the court states the

following: 3

liThe constitutional rights of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of the trial court, in which the accused, whose life and liberty is at stake - is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes a serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. Or an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record."

Johnson, at 465.

Although the court makes a finding in this matter that the defendant waived his

right to counsel, the court's factual basis for the conclusion is not on the record.

Based on the above, the court hereby grants the defendant's motion to strike the

two prior convictions. It is hereby ORDERED that the two OUI convictions, the

conviction of July 28, 1999, and the conviction of April 25, 2001, shall be stricken from

the indictment.

Dated: ? -,& -Or

Attorney for the State

Paul Rucha, ADA Kennebec County Courthouse Augusta, ME 04330

Attorney for Defendant

Sherry Tash PO Box 192 Whitefield, ME 04353 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. WILLIAM BLACK Docket No AUGSC-CR-2009-00022 554 VASSALBORO RD SOUTH CHINA ME 04358 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 06/07/1956 Attorney: SHERRY TASH State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE HAINKE & TASH PO BOX 192 WHITEFIELD ME 04353 APPOINTFD 01/14/2009

Charge(s)

1 OPERATE AFTER HABITUAL OFFENDER REVOCATION 12/17/2008 AUGUSTA 3 PRIOR Seq 11244 29-A 2557-A(2) (D) Class·C FRYE / AUG

Docket Events:

01/14/2009 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - PERMANENT TRANSFER EDI ON 01/14/2009 @ 18:00

TRANSFERRED CASE: SENDING COURT CASEID AUGDCCR200802851 FILING DOCUMENT - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 12/17/2008

01/14/2009 BAIL BOND - $500.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 12/18/2008

BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND DISBURSEMENT ON 01/13/2009

Charge(s): 1 HE1,iUNG - INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 01/14/2009 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Charge (s): 1 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE NOT HELD ON 01/14/2009

MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/14/2009

Chcirgc(s): 1 FINDING - PERMANENT TRANSFER TRANSFERRED ON 01/14/2009

AUGSC 01/22/2009 B!,lL BOND - $500.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 01/22/2009

Bail Receipt Type: CR B"il ,-,:llt: $500 Receipt Type: CK Date Bailed: 01/14/2009 Prvdr Name: PATRICIA GEARY Rtrn Name: PATRICIA GEARY

01/22/2009 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 01/14/2009 RC~~~T E MULLEN • JUDGE

Page 1 of:3 Printed on: 07/06/2009 WILLIAM BLACK AUGSC-CR-2009-00022 DOCKET RECORD COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/22/2009 Party(s): WILLIAM BLACK ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 01/14/2009

Attorney: SHERRY TASH 01/22/2009 Charge (s): 1 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 03/10/2009 @ 10:00

01/22/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 01/22/2009

02/20/2009 ORDER - TRANSCRIPT ORDER FILED ON 02/20/2009

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT OF 7/28/99 PROVISION OF RIGHTS BY THE COURT FOR PLEA AND SSNTENCING; 4/25/01 PROVISION OF RIGHTS BY THE COUT AND PLEA AND SENTENCING. 2/24/09 COPY SENT TO ER 03/10/2009 Charge (s): 1 lIL;lJUNG - STATUS CONFERENCE HELD ON 03/10/2009 J(j~E,)Il M JAI3AR , JUSTICE Reporter: JANETTE COOK Defendant Present in Court 03/10/2009 Charge(s): 1 HUJUNG - STA'l'US CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 04/14/2009 @ 10: 00

03/10/2009 C1Llr'.le (s): 1 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 03/10/2009

03/10/2009 Mehle:) - MOTION TO AfvIEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 03/09/2009

03/27/2009 Char'Je (s): 1 lll,i.:d:;,j - [iTATUS CONFERENCE NOT HELD ON 03/27/2009

03/27/2009 C]klL':!l': (s): 1 IILldUliG - AldVUGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/14/2009 @ 10: 00

03/27/2009 CI1JLgc: (s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 03/27/2009

03/27/2009 Cl:. c'.l'- (s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 03/27/2009

04/16/2009 Charge(s): 1 H;:.'U ,:(; - !,RRAIGNMENT HELD ON 04/14/2009 L.... MILLS, JuSTICE R,->~)r::cr: TJJ~:~Y DROUIN

R:,DLJ.J WAIVED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Ouellette
2006 ME 81 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2006)
State v. Watson
2006 ME 80 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Black, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-black-mesuperct-2009.