Rebecca R. Pettit v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2005-468

Filed: Jul. 18, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Rebecca R. Pettit

Summary

Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. Conviction and sentence: life imprisonment without parole. C. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a proper determination of Appellant's indigency status for court-appointed counsel?
• Was Appellant's self-representation at trial voluntary?

Findings

• the trial court erred in ruling that Appellant was not indigent for purposes of court-appointed trial counsel
• the record failed to show that Appellant's self-representation at trial was voluntary
• the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial
• the application to file supplemental brief related to sentencing is dismissed as moot

F-2005-468

Jul. 18, 2006

Rebecca R. Pettit

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant, Rebecca R. Pettit, was convicted by a jury of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.2001, § 701.7) in the District Court of Sequoyah County, Case No. CF-2000-230. The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On April 28, 2005, the Honorable John C. Garrett, District Judge, sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. The charge in this case stems from the death of Appellant’s six-year-old son, Adam. The State alleged that Appellant murdered her son by asphyxiation and then attempted to kill herself by cutting her wrists. The State presented testimony that Appellant had threatened to take such action in the past. Because this case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial, we confine our review to Propositions 1 and 2 of Appellant’s brief.

The record shows that while Appellant was initially provided counsel at public expense, the trial court later reversed its ruling, found that Appellant was not indigent, and dismissed appointed counsel. Appellant represented herself at trial. In Proposition 1 Appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling that she was not indigent for purposes of court-appointed trial counsel. In Proposition 2 she contends there is no record evidence that her self-representation at trial was voluntary.

An accused is guaranteed the choice of assistance of counsel or representing herself if she desires. U.S.Const. Amend. VI; Okl.Const. art. 2, § 20; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). If the defendant appears pro se, the record must show that she understands the gravity of that decision and the dangers of self-representation. We have held that without such a record, we will not presume a defendant’s appearance without counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings was voluntary. See Nave v. State, 1991 OK CR 42, 11 15-16, 808 P.2d 991, 994; Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 6, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145. The State concedes that there is no record of such warnings from the trial court, and that lack of such a record warrants reversal.

We recognize, of course, that Appellant’s appearance at trial without counsel is directly related to the trial court’s dismissal of court-appointed counsel. Appellant claims that she was entitled to the services of court-appointed counsel, that she did not wish to represent herself at trial, and there is evidence in the record to support that claim. However, we need not address whether Appellant was entitled to court-appointed counsel at the time of her trial, because financial status is always subject to change and re-evaluation by the trial court. See Johnson v. Brock, 1992 OK CR 83, I 6, 843 P.2d 852, 853; Bruner v. State ex rel. District Court of Oklahoma County, 1978 OK CR 65, I 11, 581 P.2d 1314, 1316. Because the record fails to show that Appellant’s appearance at trial pro se was voluntary, the case is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. Stevenson v. State, 1985 OK CR 74, T 10, 702 P.2d 371, 375.

We express no opinion on the remaining propositions of error.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

3

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. U.S.Const. Amend. VI
2. Okl.Const. art. 2, § 20
3. Gideon U. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963)
4. Faretta U. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)
5. Nave v. State, 1991 OK CR 42, 11 15-16, 808 P.2d 991, 994
6. Lineberry U. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 6, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145
7. Johnson U. Brock, 1992 OK CR 83, I 6, 843 P.2d 852, 853
8. Bruner U. State ex rel. District Court of Oklahoma County, 1978 OK CR 65, I 11, 581 P.2d 1314, 1316.
9. Stevenson U. State, 1985 OK CR 74, T 10, 702 P.2d 371, 375.
10. 22 O.S.Supp.2004, § 1355.14.
11. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1355.14 - Costs of Court-Appointed Counsel

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• U.S. Const. Amend. VI - Right to Counsel
• Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) - Right to Counsel
• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) - Right to Self-Representation

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963)
• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)
• Nave v. State, 1991 OK CR 42, 11 15-16, 808 P.2d 991, 994
• Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 6, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145
• Johnson v. Brock, 1992 OK CR 83, I 6, 843 P.2d 852, 853
• Bruner v. State ex rel. District Court of Oklahoma County, 1978 OK CR 65, I 11, 581 P.2d 1314, 1316
• Stevenson v. State, 1985 OK CR 74, T 10, 702 P.2d 371, 375