No. 02-1541 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- STATE OF IOWA, Petitioner, v. FELIPE EDGARDO TOVAR, Respondent. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Iowa --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF FOR PETITIONER --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General of Iowa *DOUGLAS R. MAREK Deputy Attorney General DARREL MULLINS Assistant Attorney General Hoover Bldg., 2nd Floor Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-5976 Attorneys for Petitioner *Counsel of Record ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Sixth Amendment require a court to give a rigid and detailed admonition to a non-indigent pro se defen- dant pleading guilty of the usefulness of an attorney, that an attorney may provide an independent opinion whether it is wise to plead guilty, and that without an attorney the defendant risks overlooking a defense? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented .................................................... i Opinions Below........................................................... 1 Jurisdiction................................................................. 1 Constitutional Provision, Statutes, and Rules Involved................................................................... 1 Statement ................................................................... 2 Summary of Argument ............................................... 10 Argument.................................................................... 13 A. A Valid Guilty Plea Colloquy Provides Suffi- cient Information For A Non-Indigent Defen- dant To Make A Voluntary, Knowing, And Intelligent Waiver Of Retained Counsel ......... 13 1. Defendants validly waive constitutional rights, including the right to counsel, when they are aware of the relevant cir- cumstances and likely consequences of the waiver ................................................. 13 2. The required warnings and procedures for waiver of counsel vary according to the complexity of services an attorney can provide at that stage .......................... 15 3. An incomplete or faulty understanding of the services an attorney provides does not undermine a waiver made with a full appreciation of the ultimate adverse consequence of self-representation........... 17 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 4. Compared to trial, an attorney plays a less active role at a plea hearing which is procedurally less complex; the substance of a waiver of counsel colloquy is there- fore simpler ............................................... 21 B. The Many Elements Of A Valid Guilty Plea Colloquy Supply Record Evidence Defendant Understood The Relevant Circumstances And Likely Consequences Of Proceeding Without Retained Counsel And Pleading Guilty............................................................... 23 1. Guilty plea colloquies offer ample infor- mation to support a waiver of the right to counsel .................................................. 23 2. The presence of a valid plea colloquy al- lays concern that without counsel, the innocent will plead guilty to the wrong crime or grade of offense........................... 26 C. Pragmatic Considerations Relating To The Heavy Volume Of Misdemeanor Guilty Pleas And Enhanceable Offenses Suggest That A Separate, Formal, And Rigid Waiver Collo- quy Does Not Serve The Ends Of Justice ....... 27 1. The costs of adopting the Iowa Supreme Court’s rule for waiver of counsel out- weigh the benefits it seeks to provide, particularly in the context of recidivist statutes ..................................................... 27 2. The benefits of a separate, lengthy waiver of counsel colloquy are limited, particularly for simple offenses................ 31 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 3. Pleading guilty to a misdemeanor traffic offense without an attorney can work to a defendant’s advantage, suggesting that a wooden rule requiring reversal for lack of a separate waiver colloquy is unneces- sary............................................................ 32 D. Tovar’s 1996 Guilty Plea Colloquy Illustrates The Wisdom Of Sixth Amendment Waiver Principles And Shows The Iowa Supreme Court’s Interpretation Of The Sixth Amend- ment Should Not Stand................................... 34 Conclusion .................................................................. 37 Appendix.......................................................................App. 1 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page FEDERAL CASES Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) ............................................... 10, 14, 20, 21, 25 Akins v. United States, 276 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2002).................................................................................. 9 Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) ....................... 14 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) .................. 28 Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969)............... 13, 20, 24 Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)..............passim Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) .......................... 15 Carter v. Illinois, 329 U.S. 173 (1946)......................... 19, 25 Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (1978) ....................... 33 Crane v. Radeker, 580 F.Supp. 2 (M.D. Tenn. 1983)......... 22 Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994)......... 14, 28, 29 Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179 (2003) .............................................................................. 28 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) .................passim Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986)................................................................................ 22 Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993)................. 20, 23, 33 Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976)..... 20, 24, 25, 35 Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) ........... 10, 13, 14, 21 Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000).............................. 22 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970).................... 18 Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002).............................. 34 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).......................... 16 Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994)....... 29, 31, 36 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985)............................... 17 Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992)............................... 28, 29 Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970)................. 18 Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988)...................passim Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) ............................. 15 Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) .................... 32 Strozier v. Newsome, 871 F.2d 995 (11th Cir. 1989) ......... 22 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) ............. 18, 19, 35 Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 (1945)......................... 27 United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989)...................... 18 United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. App. 1972)....................................................................... 33 United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1999)................................................................................ 22 United States v. Hill, 252 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2001)..... 21, 31 United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (1997) ...................... 35 United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002)...11, 18, 19, 26, 30 United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979) ........ 28, 30 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977) ........... 32 Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (1948).. 13, 17, 19, 20, 25 Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) .................... 34 Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 (1945) ............................ 15 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page STATE CASES In re Johnson, 398 P.2d 420 (Cal. 1965)............................ 32 King v. State, 804 S.W.2d 360 (Ark. 1991) ........................ 26 People v. Gonzales, 446 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)................................................................................ 26 State v. Cashman, 491 N.W.2d 462 (S.D. 1992) ................ 26 State v. Moe, 379 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 1985) ........................ 31 State v. Natoli, 764 P.2d 10 (Ariz. 1988)............................ 26 State v. Ohnemus, 254 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 1977) ............... 25 State v. Rater, 568 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1997)...................... 23 State v. Strain, 585 So.2d 540 (La. 1991).......................... 23 State v. Werner, 600 N.W.2d 500 (Neb. 1999).................... 26 State v. White, 587 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa 1998) ..................... 31 State v. Wolfe, 75 P.3d 1271 (Mont. 2003) ......................... 26 CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. amend. VI.......................................................... 1 FEDERAL RULE Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.............................................................. 24 STATE RULES Ariz. Rs. Crim. P. 17.1-17.3................................................ 24 Conn. R. Crim. P. (Super. Ct.) § 39-21............................... 24 Del. R. Crim. P. 11 .............................................................. 24 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES