Opinion
CR-15-4590
04-08-2016
STATE OF MAINE, Plaintiff, v. LLOYD L LYTTLE, Defendant
ORDER
Paul Fritzsche Justice, Superior Court
Mr. Lyttle has been charged with four offenses including a charge, in Count I of the complaint, of operating under the influence as a second offense based on a prior conviction from September 17, 2014.
The defendant has filed a Motion to strike prior conviction alleging that it was obtained without a valid waiver of counsel. The attorneys have informed the Court that when Mr. Lyttle was charged with first offense operating under the influence he was informed about the right to counsel as part of a presentation to all the defendants, that he did not have counsel, that he was not questioned about waiving counsel when he pled and that he pled guilty and received a sentence which did not involve jail time.
It is clear under State v Cook, 706 A.2d 603 (Me. 1998) that he was not entitled to court appointed counsel in 2014. It is not however clear that he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. See State v. Rowell, 468 A.2d 1005, 7 (Me. 1983) and State v. Holmes. 2003 Me 42 in the context of the right to trial by jury and State v. Watson, 2006 Me 80 in the context of waiver of counsel at trial.
The entry is: Defendant's Motion to strike prior conviction is granted.