Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court held that Dale Yost did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional right to counsel before sentencing. The court also held that his conduct was not the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver and reversed and remanded for resentencing with appointed counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Yost knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional right to counsel.
- Whether Yost's conduct in requesting substitute appointed counsel constituted the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of the right to counsel.
- Whether the district court erred by proceeding with sentencing while Yost was unrepresented.
Holdings
- The record did not establish that Yost knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel because he was not warned that his continued requests for substitute counsel could result in his proceeding without counsel and was not given the choice between retaining appointed counsel and self-representation.
- Yost's second request for appointed counsel did not constitute the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver because the district court had expressly permitted him to reapply and Yost did not refuse to work with counsel or clearly choose self-representation.
- The district court could not proceed with sentencing while Yost was unrepresented because sentencing is a critical stage at which a criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, and Yost had not validly waived that right.
Key quotations
“A knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel depends on the facts and circumstances and requires the defendant to be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self- representation so the record establishes the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” (¶ 12)
“Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude the record does not establish Yost knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, nor did his conduct rise to the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel.” (¶ 23)
Factual background
Yost was charged with eleven counts of gross sexual imposition involving five minor victims and received appointed counsel. After his first request for substitute counsel was denied, he entered Alford pleas to five counts under an agreement dismissing the remaining six counts. Before sentencing, Yost complained about counsel and sought new appointed counsel; the district court allowed counsel to withdraw and permitted Yost to reapply. When the request was not assigned by the indigent-defense commission, the court denied it, deemed Yost's conduct a waiver of counsel, and sentenced him without counsel.
Procedural history
Yost was initially represented by appointed counsel William Hartl. After Yost sought new counsel and filed letters concerning ineffective assistance, Hartl withdrew. The district court permitted Yost to reapply for appointed counsel but later denied the request and treated Yost's continued request for new counsel as the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of counsel. Yost appeared without counsel at sentencing and received concurrent sentences totaling forty-five years, with twenty years suspended and ten years of supervised probation. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for resentencing with appointed counsel.