|
No. 122998
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Gary A. Moore (616) 336-3577 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| vs
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Kent -- Johnston, D.) |
|
|
| Lord Shawn Russell, |
|
Jacqueline J. McCann
(313) 256-9833 |
|
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| _____________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
ssLord Shawn Russell was arrested after sheriff's deputies found cocaine and heroin in his car. The court assigned an attorney to Russell under MCR 6.005(D). MCR 6005(D) provides that, in criminal cases, "If the court determines that the defendant is financially unable to retain a lawyer, it must promptly appoint a lawyer and promptly notify the lawyer of the appointment." At trial, Russell indicated to the trial judge several times that he wanted his assigned trial attorney removed and new counsel appointed. The trial judge stated that he did not find any valid reason for removing the attorney. The judge went on to tell Russell of his options: he could hire his own counsel, represent himself, continue with his current attorney, or represent himself with the lawyer available for consultation. The judge also warned Russell that it was not wise for Russell to represent himself. Ultimately, after more discussion, the trial judge said that when they reconvened the trial, if Russell wished, the judge would announce to the jury that Russell was representing himself. When the court reconvened, the trial judge did not ask Russell whether he wanted to represent himself, but told the jury that Russell had chosen to represent himself. Russell commented to the jurors, "I'm being forced into this situation .. I requested the Court appoint new counsel for me, and they said, for some reason being that we're here and they don't see the difference .. So they forced me to go on with this trial alone by myself." The trial went forward with the attorney available to advise Russell. The jury convicted Russell of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams cocaine and possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of two and a half to 40 years on each count. In a published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed Russell's convictions. The Court of Appeals stated that "defendant's conduct and refusal to accept representation by appointed counsel constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to counsel." The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's conclusion that Russell had not provided a good reason to replace his attorney and stated that Russell, by his own conduct, demonstrated that he wanted to proceed on his own. Russell appeals. He argued that he repeatedly told the court that he wanted counsel and never stated that he wanted to represent himself. Russell was indigent throughout the case and was entitled to have a court-appointed lawyer represent him, he contends.
Top of Page
|
