Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Michael Patterson’s convictions for conspiracy to commit murder, murder with use of a deadly weapon, and discharging a firearm at or into a vehicle. The court held that the justice court violated Patterson’s qualified Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying retained counsel’s request to substitute at the preliminary hearing without sufficient inquiry. The court concluded that the error was subject to harmless-error review and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and rejected Patterson’s Brady and other claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the justice court violated Patterson's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying his request to substitute retained counsel for appointed counsel at the preliminary hearing.
- Whether the denial of counsel of choice at a preliminary hearing is structural error requiring reversal or trial error subject to harmless-error review.
- Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose FBI memoranda concerning the recording of interviews.
- Whether Patterson's remaining claims concerning the arrest warrant, a Jackson v. Denno hearing, trial proceedings, rap lyrics, and cumulative error warranted reversal.
Holdings
- A preliminary hearing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, including the qualified right of a nonindigent defendant to counsel of choice, attaches at that stage.
- The justice court abused its discretion by denying Patterson's request to substitute retained counsel without adequately inquiring into the prejudice to Patterson or the extent of delay and inconvenience that substitution would cause.
- A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice at a preliminary hearing is trial error subject to harmless-error review, not structural error requiring automatic reversal.
- The denial of Patterson's counsel of choice at the preliminary hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not warrant reversal.
- The State did not violate Brady by failing to disclose FBI memoranda stating that agents were encouraged to seek permission to record interviews.
Key quotations
“A pretrial proceeding is “critical” if “potential substantial prejudice to defendant's rights inheres in the particular confrontation and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice.”” (129 Nev. at 174)
“Here, the justice court failed to make an adequate inquiry and give due consideration to the prejudice to Patterson or the extent of the delay or inconvenience that the substitution of Ogata would have caused. This was an abuse of discretion.” (129 Nev. at 177)
“Accordingly, we reaffirm our prior jurisprudence and specifically hold that violations of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice at a preliminary hearing are reviewed for harmless error.” (129 Nev. at 178)
“Based on this evidence, we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the justice court’s denial of Patterson’s counsel of choice did not contribute to Patterson’s conviction.” (129 Nev. at 179)
Factual background
Patterson was convicted in connection with the shooting death of Bobby Wilkerson. Surveillance footage, vehicle ownership evidence, cell-phone records, the discovery of the shotgun in Patterson's apartment, and testimony that Patterson confessed linked Patterson to the killing. Patterson had appointed counsel for his criminal charges but retained Garrett Ogata shortly before the preliminary hearing; the justice court denied Ogata's request to substitute as counsel because Ogata was not prepared to proceed immediately, although it allowed him to assist appointed counsel at counsel table.
Procedural history
Patterson was initially represented by appointed counsel, Richard Tannery. On the evening before the preliminary hearing, Patterson retained Garrett Ogata, who sought substitution as counsel and a continuance so that he could prepare. The justice court denied the substitution request without adequately inquiring into the request, but permitted Ogata to sit at counsel table and assist Tannery. Patterson was later convicted in district court and appealed, asserting violations of his right to counsel of choice, Brady, and other constitutional and trial rights. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.