The 1992 and 1993 waivers stated: “I do not wish to have an attorney appointed by the Court but wish to retain an attorney on my own or to present my own defense and arguments to the Court. I waive my rights to have a court appointed attorney represent me.” Unlike the waiver suggested by [In re Gilchrist, 238 Kan. 202, 708 P.2d 977 (1985)] that explicitly stated the defendant did not want retained or appointed counsel, the 1992 and 1993 waivers actually invoked the desire for retained counsel.This is a great example of how I think prior municipal convictions that matter in criminal history should be a ripe area for litigation. See, e.g., State v. Allen.
[Update: the state did not file a petition for review and the mandate issued on August 17, 2006]
No comments:
Post a Comment