State v. Brake

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Brake

715 P.2d 970, 110 Idaho 300, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 431

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1986

Docket15650

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 715 P.2d 970 (State v. Brake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brake, 715 P.2d 970, 110 Idaho 300, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 431 (Idaho 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

SHEPARD, Justice.

Defendant-appellant Brake was cited for, and following a jury trial was convicted by the magistrate court of, driving with an expired driver’s license in violation of I.C. § 49-322. An appeal was taken to the district court, which affirmed the conviction. On this appeal the sole assertion of error raised and argued is that the magistrate court erred in denying Brake the assistance of a non-attorney counsel in his trial before the magistrate court. Brake’s theories and arguments are well expressed in his brief, but it is sufficient to say that they are not supported by legal authority. There is no claim here that Brake was indigent and unconstitutionally denied the right to court-appointed counsel, but only that he had a constitutional right to be represented by a non-lawyer in the trial proceedings.

A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to counsel, U.S. CONST, amend. VI; IDAHO CONST, art. 1 § 13, and a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the constitutional right to appear pro se. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 [301]*301S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). However, the authorities are unanimous that a defendant in a criminal prosecution has no constitutional right to be represented at trial by a non-lawyer lay counsel. United States v. Bertolini, 576 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Young, 578 F.2d 216 (8th Cir.1978); State v. Stewart, 21 Ariz.App. 123, 516 P.2d 332 (1973); Wesley v. Woods, 42 Or.App. 85, 600 P.2d 421 (1979). See particularly the lengthy analysis and authorities cited in Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D.Tex.1975).

The order of the district court and the conviction entered by the magistrate court are affirmed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ„ concur.

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

SHEPARD, Justice.

Defendant-appellant Brake was cited for, and following a jury trial was convicted by the magistrate court of, driving with an expired driver’s license in violation of I.C. § 49-322. An appeal was taken to the district court, which affirmed the conviction. On this appeal the sole assertion of error raised and argued is that the magistrate court erred in denying Brake the assistance of a non-attorney counsel in his trial before the magistrate court. Brake’s theories and arguments are well expressed in his brief, but it is sufficient to say that they are not supported by legal authority. There is no claim here that Brake was indigent and unconstitutionally denied the right to court-appointed counsel, but only that he had a constitutional right to be represented by a non-lawyer in the trial proceedings.

A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to counsel, U.S. CONST, amend. VI; IDAHO CONST, art. 1 § 13, and a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the constitutional right to appear pro se. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 [301]*301S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). However, the authorities are unanimous that a defendant in a criminal prosecution has no constitutional right to be represented at trial by a non-lawyer lay counsel. United States v. Bertolini, 576 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Young, 578 F.2d 216 (8th Cir.1978); State v. Stewart, 21 Ariz.App. 123, 516 P.2d 332 (1973); Wesley v. Woods, 42 Or.App. 85, 600 P.2d 421 (1979). See particularly the lengthy analysis and authorities cited in Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D.Tex.1975).

The order of the district court and the conviction entered by the magistrate court are affirmed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 P.2d 970, 110 Idaho 300, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brake-idaho-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack