State v. Miller

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. JOHN MILLER, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jun 21, 2007

ID No. 0607013529 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 21, 2007)

Opinion

ID No. 0607013529.

June 21, 2007.

ORDER

WILLIAM C. CARPENTER, Jr.

This 21^st day of June, 2007, it appears to the Court that:

1. Pursuant to the Order of the Delaware Supreme Court dated May 21, 2007, the Court held an evidentiary hearing in this case on June 1, 2007 in regards to the defendant's desire to represent himself in the appeal of the above-captioned matter. Present at the hearing were Cari Ann Van Dyke, Esquire representing the State, Edward C. Pankowski, Esquire, counsel for the defendant and Mr. Miller. The transcript of that hearing has been placed in the case file which is being returned to the Supreme Court.

2. Consistent with the Supreme Court's Order, this Court, in questioning Mr. Miller, found the following:

(a) Mr. Miller has not retained private counsel and continues to desire to represent himself in this appeal;

(b) Mr. Miller has been incarcerated for the past ten years and therefore has very little income or savings and the Court finds him to be indigent;

(c) While not earning a bachelors degree, Mr. Miller has been enrolled in college and studied computer science and business administration. The Court finds Mr. Miller to be articulate and bright, and he fully appreciates that his representation options are to either accept representation from his court-appointed counsel, Mr. Pankowski, or to proceed pro se. Mr. Miller has had numerous criminal cases in which he has pled guilty, been sentenced and appealed, and it appears to the Court that he has a significant familiarity with the criminal justice system. During the hearing Mr. Pankowski also confirmed that in all of his dealings with Mr. Miller he has found him to be a "very eloquent, articulate man with mostly a college education;"

(d) Mr. Miller's decision to proceed pro se appears to be the result of a deterioration of the attorney-client relationship and the defendant's belief that counsel has not been truthful in all of their prior dealings. As such, the defendant no longer trusts the judgment of his counsel to act in his best interest;

(e) It appears to the Court that Mr. Miller has made the decision to proceed pro se without consulting with others or without being improperly influenced by other individuals, particularly those with whom he is presently incarcerated;

(f) Mr. Miller was warned that the appeal process can be complicated and difficult for a nonlawyer to follow or understand and that he would be required to follow all pertinent rules and procedures of the Delaware Supreme Court if he proceeded pro se;

(g) Mr. Miller was advised that noncompliance with the rules or procedures of the Delaware Supreme Court could delay, prejudice or even result in the dismissal of his appeal; and

(h) Mr. Miller was told that the Delaware Supreme Court does not grant oral argument to pro se litigants and that if the Court allowed him to proceed pro se, the appeal would not be delayed or interrupted so he could obtain new counsel if he changed his mind.

3. As a result of the above, the Court finds that the defendant is making an informed decision regarding his representation and is doing so knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. As such, the Court finds that defendant may proceed pro se, and Mr. Pankowski is released from his representation in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21^st day of June, 2007.