Opinion
A23-0241
11-02-2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Broderick Robert Cook, Appellant.
Martin County District Court File No. 46-CR-21-823
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Broderick Robert Cook with two felony counts: assault with a dangerous weapon and fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle.
2. At a pretrial hearing, Cook's counsel entered a plea of not guilty, pending a possible plea offer from the state. Cook accepted the state's plea offer. In exchange for Cook's guilty plea to one count of felony obstruction of legal process, Minn. Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1 (2020), the state agreed to drop the remaining charges.
3. The district court accepted Cook's plea. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for December 2022. Following the plea hearing, Cook moved to withdraw his plea and discharge his counsel. On November 10, Cook's counsel moved to withdraw as Cook's attorney. On November 21, Cook appeared with counsel for a motion hearing to address counsel's motion to withdraw and Cook's motion to withdraw his plea. The district court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and excused counsel from the proceedings. Cook, now unrepresented, made no written or oral waiver of his right to counsel. The district court imposed a 15-month sentence stayed for five years. Cook appealed.
4. Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to the assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. "This right applies to all critical stages of a criminal proceeding." See State v. Gant, N.W.2d __, __, 2023 WL 5340023, at *3 (Minn.App. Aug. 5, 2023) (stating that a sentencing hearing is a critical stage of the proceeding); State v. Maddox, 825 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn.App. 2013) (including "trial-like confrontations, at which counsel" could help the defendant with legal issues or meeting the state as an adversary at a "critical stage of the proceedings" (quotations omitted)).
5. "The denial of the right to counsel is a structural error." Maddox, 825 N.W.2d at 147 (quotation omitted). Structural error is a very limited class of error, which generally requires automatic reversal. State v. Dalbec, 800 N.W.2d 624, 627 (Minn. 2011).
6. A defendant may waive the right to counsel, but the waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 806 (1975); State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270, 275-76 (Minn. 1998). The district court should ensure that a defendant waiving counsel is aware of the "possible punishments, mitigating circumstances, and any other facts relevant to the defendant's understanding of the consequences of the waiver." Worthy, 583 N.W.2d at 276 (quotation omitted).
7. The district court excused Cook's counsel before making its sentencing decision. Although the district court continued the omnibus issue so that Cook could retain counsel, it proceeded to sentencing without Cook having an attorney present, a written waiver of the right to counsel, or a record of a waiver in the transcripts.
8. Rule 5.04, subdivision 1(4), of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the procedure district courts must follow when a defendant charged with a felony offense wishes to waive their right to counsel. District courts must advise the defendant of the "nature of the charges," "all offenses included within the charges," the "range of allowable punishments," that "there may be defenses," that "mitigating circumstances may exist," and "all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the consequences of the waiver of the right to counsel, including the advantages and disadvantages of the decision to waive counsel." Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.04, subd. 1(4)(a)-(f). Therefore, we conclude that the district court's decision to proceed with the sentencing hearing was a structural error because Cook was not afforded his Sixth Amendment right to counsel nor had he made a record of his waiver of the right to counsel. We reverse and remand for a sentencing hearing with an opportunity for counsel to be present or for the district court to obtain a valid waiver of Cook's right to counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's sentencing order is reversed, and this matter is remanded for a sentencing hearing with an opportunity for counsel to be present.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.