State v. Woods

961 N.W.2d 238

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Malcolm Jammal WOODS, Appellant.

A20-0669

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: June 16, 2021

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, James E. Haase, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Anders J. Erickson, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

McKEIG, Justice.

Malcolm Jammal Woods brings this direct appeal after being convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. Woods raises three issues on appeal. First, Woods argues that the district court erred in denying two requests for advisory counsel to assume full representation of his defense. Second, he argues that his waiver of counsel was involuntary. Last, he argues that the district court violated Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2020) when it entered a conviction for the offense of second-degree intentional murder. We conclude that Woods did not make a valid request for advisory counsel to assume full representation, that the record supports the district court's finding that Woods voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and that the entry of a conviction for the offense of second-degree intentional murder violated section 609.04. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

On September 9, 2018, Rochester police found Woods’ grandmother naked and unresponsive in her bedroom. Family members falsely believed that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by her neighbor, Brandon Matthew Arndt. The next day, someone knocked on the back door of Arndt's home. As Arndt opened the door, he was fatally shot. Arndt's mother saw her son fall backwards and called 911. After the investigation into Arndt's death focused on Woods, officers found a handgun in Woods’ backpack.

An Olmsted County grand jury indicted Woods for first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185, subd. (a)(1), 609.19, subd. 1(1), 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2020). At his first appearance, Woods applied for the services of the public defender. After reviewing his application, the district court appointed two public defenders to represent him. Between October 2018 and June 2019, the public defenders represented Woods at several hearings.

On June 4, 2019, Woods appeared before the district court with his public defenders. After his public defenders informed the court that Woods intended to waive the omnibus hearing, Woods expressed a desire to "remove" the public defenders without identifying any specific dissatisfaction with their representation. When the district court asked if Woods intended to retain private counsel, he replied, "No. I'm planning on doing this myself." The court continued the hearing to provide Woods more time to consider his decision to waive his right to counsel¹ and time to fill out written petitions² for self-representation.

The next day, Woods appeared before the district court with his public defenders. After one of the public defenders explained that Woods’ request to remove them was motivated by a disagreement over a strategic decision, Woods asked for more time to discuss the issue with his public defenders. The court granted Woods’ request for additional time and the matter was continued.

When he appeared before the district court the next day, Woods said, "I am removing [my public defenders]," and, "I'm going to take this on my own." Woods then submitted his written petitions to proceed pro se and represent himself. Woods acknowledged that he read the petitions, fully understood them, had no questions about them, and was of clear mind and judgment in making his decision. The court then notified Woods of the advantages and disadvantages of self-representation, the nature of the charges against him and their corresponding punishments, the requirement that he adhere to the rules of criminal procedure and evidence, and his constitutional right to self-representation. Having fully advised Woods, the court asked if he still intended to exercise his constitutional right to self-representation. Woods confirmed that he wanted to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. Finding that Woods’ waiver of counsel was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given, the court accepted the waiver, discharged his public defenders, and took the issue of advisory counsel under advisement.

On June 7, 2019, the district court told Woods that it had decided to appoint advisory counsel under Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.04, subd. 2. In explaining its decision, the court said it was concerned about fairness of the process. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.04, subd. 2(1). The court also expressed concerns about delays in completing the trial, potential disruption by Woods, and the complexity and length of the trial. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.04, subd. 2(2). The court then appointed Z.B., a Minnesota attorney practicing at a private law firm, to serve as advisory counsel. When the court asked Woods if he had any questions, Woods engaged in the following colloquy with the court:

Woods: Okay. See, I have a fourth grade reading level so I really don't know how to read or write.

Court: Okay.

Woods: So, you know, the only reason why—I didn't really want to become my own lawyer. The only reason why I fired them is because they wasn't helping me. [My public defenders.] I don't have no education at all to be a lawyer myself.

Court: Right. And that's what I was talking to you about yesterday, Mr. Woods. That's what that was all about. So are you telling me that you want legal representation in this case?

Woods: Yes, I do.

Court: You just don't want the public defenders; is that correct?

Woods: No. They would—no. They wasn't helping me. They wasn't helping me at all. They wasn't—they wasn't informing me about anything, about the court, the cases. They wasn't—they was basically waiving everything without asking me about anything. They wasn't really working with me, Your Honor. I was being—my mother said misrep—I don't know how to say the word. I was being misrepresented.

Advisory counsel interjected at this point, expressing a concern that Woods did not actually want to represent himself. If Woods was actually seeking substitute counsel, advisory counsel stated that he was not prepared to provide that level of representation. Advisory counsel then suggested that the court appoint a public defender to act as advisory counsel.

In response to advisory counsel's concerns, the district court told Woods that if he did not want to represent himself, he would be represented by the public defender's office and that if he had concerns about his public defender's performance, he would need to discuss those concerns with the supervisor of the public defender. If the supervisor failed to address any serious concerns, Woods could then ask the court to intervene. Woods told the court that he understood the process and that instead of going through that process, he wanted to represent himself with the assistance of advisory counsel. Between June 2019 and October 2019, Woods and his advisory counsel appeared at several hearings.

On October 1, 2019, Woods asked the district court to reappoint the public defender's office to represent him and to discharge his advisory counsel. Woods did not express any concerns about advisory counsel's performance. When Woods asked that his former public defenders not be reappointed, the court reminded him that it did not control public defender assignments and that any assignment concerns would need to be raised with a supervisor at the public defender's office. The court then reappointed the public defender's office and discharged advisory counsel.

On October 31, 2019, 30 days later, Woods appeared before the district court along with his former public defenders and their supervisor. The supervisor told the court that Woods did not want to be represented by his former public defenders and that instead he wanted advisory counsel to assume full representation under Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.04, subd. 2(2)(b). Expressing a concern about "game[ ] playing," the court said that it was not going to consider any concerns Woods had regarding his former public defenders "on an ad hoc basis" and that Woods would need to file a written motion detailing how his former public defenders were providing ineffective assistance of counsel. Woods never filed a written motion to remove his former public defenders.

When Woods and the supervisor of his former public defenders appeared before the district court two weeks later, on November 15, 2019, the supervisor explained that her office rejected Woods’ request for a different public defender because his former public defenders had "provided excellent representation to Mr. Woods." During the hearing, Woods did not express any serious concerns regarding his former public defenders. Instead, he told the court that he again wanted to waive his right to counsel and exercise his constitutional right to self-representation. Woods signed a second set of petitions for self-representation, acknowledged that he read the petitions, fully understood them, had no questions about them, and was of clear mind and judgment in making his decision. The district court again notified Woods of the advantages and disadvantages of self-representation, the nature of the charges against him and their corresponding punishments, the requirement that he adhere to the rules of criminal procedure and evidence, and his constitutional right to self-representation. Finding that Woods’ second waiver of counsel was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given, the court accepted the waiver and petitions for self-representation. The court then appointed Woods’ former public defenders to serve as...