State v. J. Idland ( 2023 )

01/17/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Case Number: DA 22-0120
DA 22-0120
HLED
STATE OF MONTANA,
JAN 1 7 2023
Plaintiff and Appellee, Bowen G
Clc , .
:nw000
me Court
Slate of Montana
v. ORDER
JACOB JON IDLAND,
Defendant and Appellant.
Jacob Jon Idland appears as a self-represented litigant and moves this Court to
remove counsel in his appeal so he rnay represent himself. Idland presently has counsel
from the Appellate Defender Division (ADD). Idland appeals a January 19, 2022
Sentencing Order. issued in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County.
Idland states that he knowingly waives the right to counsel, pursuant to § 46-8-102,
MCA. He further states that he "wishes to be represented by himself in which to prepare
and file [an] appeal" with this Court. He points out that his counsel has filed six extensions
of time to file an opening brief. Idland adds that he contacted the Administrator of the
Appellate Defender Division about this motion, and he states that there is no objection.
This Court observes that Idland did not serve a copy of the motion upon counsel
with the Appellate Defender Division.
"There is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as of
right." Martinez v. Ct. of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152, 155, 120 S. Ct. 684, 687 (2000) (internal
quotation omitted). The United States Supreme Court recognized that "the right of appeal,
as we presently know it in criminal cases, is purely a creature of statute. It necessarily
follows that the [Sixth] Amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to
self-representation on appeal." Martinez, 528 U.S. at 160, 120 S. Ct. at 690 (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court pointed out the significant differences
between the trial and appellate stages of a criminal proceeding. "By contrast, it is ordinarily
the defendant, rather than the State, who initiates the appellate process, seeking not to fend
off the efforts of the State's prosecutor but rather to overturn a finding of guilt made by a
judge or a jury below." Martinez, 528 U.S. at 162-63, 120 S. Ct. at 691 (internal citation
and quotation marks omitted).
The only basis upon which Idland bases his motion to remove appellate counsel is
that his court-appointed counsel from the Appellate Defender Division has filed six
extensions and is having problems finding contract attorneys to address its backlog.
Although Idland "requests to knowingly waive the right to [c]ounsel and . . . representO
himself," there is no indication that he is "aware of the dangers and disadvantages of
self-representation." City of Missoula v. Fogarty, 2013 MT 254, ¶ 12, 371 Mont. 513, 309
P.3d 10 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Idland may not immediately appreciate
the benefit of the appointment of counsel for his direct appeal, but he is entitled to counsel's
representation. Section 46-8-104(1)(d), MCA.
This Court cautions Idland to refrain from filing pleadings on his own behalf while
represented by counsel in an appeal. M. R. App. P. 10(1)(c). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Idland's Motion for Waiver of Counsel is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Jacob Jon Idland personally.
DATED this / /71kday ofJanuary, 2023.
Chief Justice
Justices
3