State v. Porter

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Porter

795 A.2d 827, 147 N.H. 497, 2002 N.H. LEXIS 19

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedApril 2, 2002

DocketNo. 2000-164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 795 A.2d 827 (State v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Porter, 795 A.2d 827, 147 N.H. 497, 2002 N.H. LEXIS 19 (N.H. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BROCK, C.J.

The defendant, Gary Porter, appeals orders of the Superior Court (Perkins, J.) denying his pro se motions. We affirm.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated felonious sexual assault and kidnapping. See RSA 682-A:2,1(a) (1996); RSA 633:1,1 (1996). We affirmed his convictions in State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96 (1999), but remanded to superior court for resentencing. Id. at 97,102.

On remand, although the defendant was represented by counsel, he sought to vacate his sentence, secure a new trial, dismiss the kidnapping indictments, and set aside the jury verdicts through a series of pro se motions. The trial court declined to address the merits of these pro se motions because the defendant was represented by counsel. The court rejected the motions “without prejudice to the defendant’s ability to file such Motions or other posttrial [sic] motions as appropriate through counsel,” stating that if the motions were presented by defense counsel, the court would address their merits.

The trial court’s decision not to rule upon the merits of the defendant’s pro se motions was a sustainable exercise of its discretion. See State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001). “The New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions guarantee a defendant facing criminal prosecution both the right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se. Yet these entitlements are antithetical, and the exercise of one right nullifies the other.” State v. Panzera, 139 N.H. 235, 237-38 (1994) (citations omitted). On remand, the defendant elected to be represented by counsel. Thus, the court’s denial of his pro se motions, without prejudice to their being submitted by his counsel, was sustainable on the record.

Having concluded that the trial court’s decision was appropriate, we decline to address the merits of the defendant’s various pro se motions for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

Broderick, Nadeau and Dalianis, JJ., concurred.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BROCK, C.J.

The defendant, Gary Porter, appeals orders of the Superior Court (Perkins, J.) denying his pro se motions. We affirm.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated felonious sexual assault and kidnapping. See RSA 682-A:2,1(a) (1996); RSA 633:1,1 (1996). We affirmed his convictions in State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96 (1999), but remanded to superior court for resentencing. Id. at 97,102.

On remand, although the defendant was represented by counsel, he sought to vacate his sentence, secure a new trial, dismiss the kidnapping indictments, and set aside the jury verdicts through a series of pro se motions. The trial court declined to address the merits of these pro se motions because the defendant was represented by counsel. The court rejected the motions “without prejudice to the defendant’s ability to file such Motions or other posttrial [sic] motions as appropriate through counsel,” stating that if the motions were presented by defense counsel, the court would address their merits.

The trial court’s decision not to rule upon the merits of the defendant’s pro se motions was a sustainable exercise of its discretion. See State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001). “The New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions guarantee a defendant facing criminal prosecution both the right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se. Yet these entitlements are antithetical, and the exercise of one right nullifies the other.” State v. Panzera, 139 N.H. 235, 237-38 (1994) (citations omitted). On remand, the defendant elected to be represented by counsel. Thus, the court’s denial of his pro se motions, without prejudice to their being submitted by his counsel, was sustainable on the record.

Having concluded that the trial court’s decision was appropriate, we decline to address the merits of the defendant’s various pro se motions for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

Broderick, Nadeau and Dalianis, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 A.2d 827, 147 N.H. 497, 2002 N.H. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-porter-nh-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack