Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A06-1912 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. William Lehman, Appellant. Filed May 13, 2008 Affirmed Connolly, Judge St. Louis County District Court File No. CR-05-1341

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1800, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Melanie S. Ford, St. Louis County Attorney, St. Louis County Courthouse, 100 North Fifth Avenue West, #501, Duluth, MN 55802 (for respondent) Mark D. Nyvold, 332 Minnesota Street, W1610, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. A criminal defendant forfeits his right to court-appointed counsel when he assaults his court-appointed attorney. 2. The district court does not violate due process by deciding, without an

evidentiary hearing, that a criminal defendant has forfeited his right to court-appointed

counsel when the defendant assaults his court-appointed attorney in the presence of the court. OPINION CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant attacked and beat his attorney in open court while on trial for felony assault after the district court denied his requests to discharge his public defender and declare a mistrial. The district court determined that, because of the assault, appellant had forfeited his right to court-appointed counsel. The district court further ordered that appellant would appear shackled for the remainder of the trial. Appellant argues that his due-process rights were violated because he was not provided with an evidentiary hearing before the district court's determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel. He also contends that his due-process rights were violated when he was not present at the hearing in which the district court decided that he would be shackled for the remainder of the jury trial. Appellant further argues that forcing him to wear jail clothes for the remainder of the jury trial also violated procedural due process and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by mentioning appellant's attack on his attorney during closing argument. We affirm. FACTS Appellant William Lehman was charged with four counts of second-degree assault, two counts of third-degree assault, and one count of terroristic threats. The complaint alleged that appellant assaulted two men with a knife and inflicted substantial bodily harm on both. In addition, the complaint charged that appellant qualified as a 2

dangerous offender who had committed a third violent felony within the meaning of Minn. Stat.

Download A06-1912, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. William Lehman, Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law