State v. Rafay

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a right of self-representation on appeal. The court explained that the right is subject to reasonable limitations, including the good-cause standard under RAP 18.3(a)(1) and considerations of timeliness and orderly appellate administration. Because the Court of Appeals gave no reasons for denying Glen Sebastian Burns's motion to proceed pro se, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. Article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a right of self-representation on appeal.
2. The right of self-representation on appeal is not self-executing or absolute and may be subject to reasonable limitations concerning waiver of counsel, good cause, timing, and orderly appellate administration.
3. The Court of Appeals' unexplained denial could not be sustained because the record did not disclose whether it applied the correct legal standard or relied on facts supported by the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a right to represent himself on appeal.
2. Whether the right of self-representation on appeal is subject to limitations, including the good-cause and timeliness requirements governing withdrawal of appointed appellate counsel under RAP 18.3(a)(1).
3. Whether the Court of Appeals properly denied Burns's motion when its order gave no explanation of the legal standard or factual basis applied.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded