July 18, 2019

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily Waived Right to Counsel Despite Lack of Arguello Advisement

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Schupper on Thursday, July 3, 2014.

Indigent—Court-Appointed Counsel—Right to Counsel—Advisement—Recusal—Bias.

On September 7, 1995, defendant was charged with a single count of felony theft. After numerous hearings on defendant’s claim that he was indigent and had requested court-appointed counsel, defendant’s request ultimately was denied. He represented himself at trial and was found guilty of theft.

On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred when it determined he was not entitled to court-appointed counsel based on the collection investigator’s report. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

First, defendant did not meet his burden to prove he was indigent. Second, the trial court’s finding that defendant “lived a luxury lifestyle” was supported by the evidence introduced at numerous hearings over a period of six months. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant was not entitled to court-appointed counsel.

Defendant next contended that the court erred by failing to provide him an express advisement concerning his right to counsel before forcing him to proceed pro se at trial. The trial court never gave defendant an express advisement of his rights after it decided defendant was not entitled to court-appointed counsel. The record establishes that defendant knew of his right to counsel, his right to court-appointed counsel if he was indigent, and the importance of having counsel. Also, defendant is highly educated, and he understood the charges against him and the possible penalties from those charges. Defendant demonstrated that he understood his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as well as his right to subpoena and confront witnesses. Based on the totality of these circumstances, defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.

Defendant further contended that Judge Schwartz erred in denying his repeated requests for recusal based on the court’s alleged bias. Rulings of a judge, including an indigency determination, are not sufficient in themselves to show bias or prejudice. Additionally, although Judge Schwartz may have been a material witness in the perjury cases against defendant, the case would not be heard in his court. Therefore, it was not err for the court to deny defendant’s request for recusal. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Speak Your Mind

*