Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Steven Michael Hinshaw v. State of Alaska (8/5/2022) ap-2729

Steven Michael Hinshaw v. State of Alaska (8/5/2022) ap-2729

                                                    NOTICE
  

         The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the  

         Pacific Reporter.  Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal  

         errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:  



                                  303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
  

                                             Fax:  (907) 264-0878
  

                                    E-mail:  corrections @ akcourts.gov
  



                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



STEVEN MICHAEL HINSHAW,  

                                                                   Court of Appeals No. A-13671  

                                   Appellant,                   Trial Court No. 3AN-04-00166 CR  



                           v.  

                                                                              O P I N I O N  

STATE OF ALASKA,  



                                   Appellee.                        No. 2729 - August 5, 2022  



                  Appeal  from   the  Superior  Court,  Third    Judicial  District,  

                  Anchorage, Philip R. Volland, Judge.  



                  Appearances:  Megan R. Webb, Assistant Public Defender, and  

                                      

                  Samantha       Cherot,     Public   Defender,       Anchorage,   for        the  

                                                                                       

                  Appellant.   Diane L. Wendlandt, Assistant Attorney General,  

                                                                                       

                  Office of  Criminal Appeals, Anchorage,  and  Treg R. Taylor,  

                                                                              

                  Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.  



                  Before:  Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.  

                                               



                  Judge ALLARD.  



                  The  federal  and  state  constitutions  grant  criminal  defendants  the  right  to  



represent  themselves  in  their  criminal  trials,  no  matter  how  ill-advised  such  a  choice  may  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

         1  

seem.     This constitutional right exists "to                         affirm the dignity             and  autonomy   of the   



               2  

accused."                                                                                                                              

                   An erroneous denial of this right is structural error, requiring reversal of a  



                                                                          3  

                                                                              

defendant's conviction regardless of prejudice. 



                                                                                                                                 

                     In  order  to  invoke  their  right  to  self-representation,  a  defendant  must  

                                                                                                                   4  In response  

"clearly and unequivocally" declare a desire to proceed without counsel. 



                                                                                                                      

to such a declaration, a trial court must hold a hearing to ensure that the defendant's  



                                                                                                                    

waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent - i.e., that the defendant "understands  



                                                                                                                          5  

                                                                                                                                    

precisely what [they are] giving up by declining the assistance of counsel."                                                  At the  



                                                                                                                                  

hearing, the trial court must explain in some detail the advantages of proceeding with  



                                                                                     6  

                                                                                                                     

counsel and the disadvantages of self-representation.                                    If the defendant nevertheless  



                                                                                                                                   

persists in their desire to proceed pro se , the trial court must grant the defendant that  



                                                                                                                                   

right, provided that the defendant is "capable of presenting [their case] in a rational and  



      1    See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975);  McCracken v. State , 518 P.2d   



85, 91 (Alaska 1974); see also U.S. Const. amend. VI; Alaska Const. art. I, § 11.  



     2    McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168, 176-77 (1984).  



     3     See Massey v. State, 435 P.3d 1007, 1011 (Alaska App. 2018); McKaskle , 465 U.S.  



                                                 

at 177 n.8 ("Since the right of self-representation is a right that when exercised usually  

                                           

increases the likelihood of a trial outcome unfavorable to the defendant, its denial is not  

                                                           

amenable to 'harmless error' analysis. The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation  

cannot be harmless.").  



     4    Massey , 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska  



                                                                                       

App. 2008) ("[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of  

                                                                      

representation  (and  the  attendant  dangers)  unless  the  defendant  makes  a  clear  and  

unequivocal request for self-representation.").  



     5    McCracken , 518 P.2d at 91-92.  



     6    Id. ; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the  



                                                                                                                                      

Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by  

the trial court).  



                                                                - 2 -                                                            2729
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

coherent manner" and that the defendant is "willing to conduct [themselves] with at least                                                                      



                                                                      7  

a modicum of courtroom decorum."                                         



                                                                                                                                                        

                          In the current case, it is undisputed that Steven Michael Hinshaw "clearly  



                                                                                                                                         

and unequivocally" invoked his right to self-representation.  It is also undisputed that  



                                                                                                                                                               

Hinshaw was competent to proceed pro se and that he was capable of presenting his case  



                                                                                                                                                

in a rational and coherent manner without being disruptive.  The trial court nevertheless  



                                                                                                                                               

denied Hinshaw's request to represent himself based on the trial court's concern that  



                                                                                                                                                              

Hinshaw did not "appear to appreciate the significance of the tasks and issues he faces  



                                                                                                                                                             

at trial."   For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that this was error  



                                                                                        

requiring reversal of Hinshaw's convictions.  



                                                                                      

             Factual and procedural background  



                                                                                                                                                              

                          In 2004, a grand jury indicted Hinshaw for first-degree murder and other  



                                                                                                                                                 8  

                                                                                                                                     

related felony charges for shooting into a passing car and killing the driver. 



                                                                                                                                                                         

                          Initially, the Public Defender Agency was appointed to represent Hinshaw.  



                                                                                                                                                                    

However,  the  Public  Defender  Agency  was  later  allowed  to  withdraw  based  on  a  



                                                                                                                                                                         

conflict,  and  the  Office  of  Public  Advocacy  was  appointed  as  Hinshaw's  counsel.  



                                                                                                                                                              

Hinshaw was  subsequently represented  by  a series of different attorneys who  kept  



                                                                                                                                                                  

replacing each other for various reasons.  In November 2005, almost two years after the  



                                                                                                                                                                 

charges were initiated, another assistant public advocate entered his appearance in the  



            

case.  



      7      McCracken , 518 P.2d at 91-92; see Israel v. State, 2011 WL 12710297, at *1 (Alaska  



App. June 29, 2011) (unpublished).  



       8     The underlying facts of the case are described in our unpublished memorandum from                                                                 



Hinshaw's first appeal.  See Hinshaw v. State, 2010 WL 200840 (Alaska App. Jan. 20, 2010)   

(unpublished).  



                                                                               -  3 -                                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                        Hinshaw became very dissatisfied with this attorney's representation, and                                                



while   his   criminal   case   was   still   ongoing,   he   filed   a   civil   lawsuit   alleging   legal  



malpractice by the defense attorney. The civil lawsuit was later dismissed on procedural                                             

 grounds.9  



                                                                                                                                     

                        Thetrial court heldaseries ofrepresentation hearings toaddress Hinshaw's  



                                                                                                                                                    

request for a different attorney.  Ultimately, the trial court did not find good cause to  



                                                     

remove the defense attorney.  



                                                                                                                                                   

                        On  May  23,  2006,  Hinshaw filed  a  motion  to  proceed pro  se .                                                  In  an  



                                                                                                                                

 accompanying  affidavit  to  the  motion,  Hinshaw  asserted  that  he  had  "no  working  



                                                                                                                                         

relationship" with his attorney and that there were a "multitude of differences" between  



                                                                                                                                                 

them. According to Hinshaw, the defense attorney had refused "to consider matters that  



                                                                                                                                                  

 are important to [his] case."   Hinshaw concluded, "I cannot and will not, under the  



                                                                                                                                                     

 circumstances go to trial with my life at stake with [the defense attorney], I am forced to  



                       

proceed pro se ."  



                                                                                                                                                    

                        As required by law, the trial court held a hearing on Hinshaw's motion to  



                            10 

                

proceed pro se .                                                                                                           

                                Because this appeal turns on what happened at this hearing, we will  



                                                      

 describe the hearing in detail.  



      9     Under Alaska law, a criminal defendant cannot file a legal malpractice case against  



their criminal attorney unless they have been convicted at trial and then had their conviction  

                                                          

reversed through post-conviction relief proceedings.  See Shaw v. State, Dep't of Admin.,  

                                                                                            

Pub. Def. Agency, 816 P.2d 1358, 1360 (Alaska 1991).  



       10   See Massey v. State, 435 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Alaska App. 2018); McCracken , 518 P.2d  

                                                                                                                    

 at 91; see also 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice  § 6-3.6(a) & cmt. at 57-61 (Approved  

                                                                                                               

 Draft 2000) (explaining a trial court's necessary inquiry when a defendant wishes to proceed  

                                                                                             

pro se ).  



                                                                        - 4 -                                                                  2729
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                     The representation hearing  

                                                                



                    At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court clarified with Hinshaw that  

                                                                                                                                



Hinshaw  was  seeking  to  represent  himself  regardless  of  whether  his  attorney  was  

                                                                                                                              



dismissed as counsel. Hinshaw replied, "Regardless." The court then explained in detail  

                                                                                                                             



the advantages of having counsel and the disadvantages of proceeding pro se .  

                                                                                                                          



                    First, the trial court described counsel's pretrial responsibilities, which  

                                                                                                                           



include  formulating  a  case  strategy,  filing  motions,  and  negotiating  for  a  pretrial  

                                                                                                                         



disposition.   The court stressed that counsel had specialized training in these areas.  

                                                                                                                                      



Hinshaw affirmed that he understood these pretrial responsibilities and that his attorney  

                                                                                                                         



had experience handling these matters.  

                                                



                    The trial court then detailed an attorney's function at trial, including jury  

                                                                                                               



selection,offeringandobjectingto evidence, cross-examining witnesses, suggesting jury  

                                                                                                                               



instructions, making opening and closing statements, and filing appropriate motions.  

                                                                                                                                      



Hinshaw  acknowledged  that  his  attorney  had  been  specifically  trained  for  these  

                                                                                                                            



responsibilities and that he would lose the benefit of his attorney's experience and  

                                                                                                                               



training if he proceeded pro se .  

                                             



                    In response to the trial court's questions about Hinshaw's knowledge of the  

                                                                                                                                 



Alaska Rules of Evidence, Hinshaw stated that he had "researched" the rules of evidence  

                                                                                                                        



that pertained to his case.  Hinshaw was able to name five rules of evidence that applied  

                                                                                                                          



to his case and recognized that he needed to learn more.  Hinshaw conceded that he did  

                                                                                                                                



not know all of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.  

                                                                      



                    Hinshaw acknowledged that cross-examination was a very specific "talent  

                                                                                                                           



and art" and that there were "tricks to the trade" that he did not know.  Hinshaw also  

                                                                                                                               



acknowledged that he had never cross-examined a witness before.  

                                                                                                        



                    Hinshaw acknowledged that he had never prepared jury instructions or  

                                                                                                              



made arguments to a jury, that his attorney was trained to do so, and that he would not  

                                                                                                                                



                                                               -  5 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

have the benefit of that training and experience if he proceeded pro se .  Hinshaw said  

                                                                                                                              



that he intended to learn as he went along and was "continuing to educate [him]self."  

                                                                                                                  



                    The court then repeated these same warnings:  

                                                                                            



                               The Court: Do you understand that there are particular  

                                                                                                  

                    rules and procedures during the trial, not just ones that apply  

                                                                                                        

                    to pretrial practice and evidence, but actually to how a trial is  

                                                                                                              

                    conducted?  



                              Mr. Hinshaw :  Yes.  I . . .  

                                                                     



                               The  Court:          Do  you  understand  that  your  lawyer  

                                                                                                     

                    knows about them and you don't?  

                                                               



                              Mr. Hinshaw :  I understand that.  And I understand  

                                                                                               

                    that a lot of that stuff comes with experience, I do.  

                                                                                                   



                               The Court:  Do you understand that he knows and is  

                                                                                                             

                    well versed in the law and the legal implications of the law  

                                                                                                          

                    under which you've been charged?  

                                                             



                              Mr. Hinshaw :  Yes, I understand that.  

                                                                                           



                    Hinshawunderstood that his attorney had"beenanattorney for sometime,"  

                                                                                                                           



had  obtained  a  degree,  and  "had  to  pass  the  Alaska  bar,"  which  gave  "him  the  

                                                                                                                               



information that he needs."  He also acknowledged that if he went to trial without an  

                                                                                                                                



attorney, he would be going against a prosecutor who was far more skilled than he was.  

                                                                                                                             



                    The trial court then turned to the disadvantages of self-representation and  

                                                                                                                               



asked Hinshaw if he understood that he might do a poor job representing himself because  

                                                                                                                        



of  his  lack  of  experience.               Hinshaw  indicated  that  he  understood.                        Hinshaw  also  

                                                                                                                             



recognized that, because of his lack of legal training, he might fail to make appropriate  

                                                                                                                   



objections.   He showed awareness of the fact that he would not be able to raise an  

                                                                                                                                



objection on appeal if it was not raised in the trial court.  

                                                                                        



                    The trial court then asked Hinshaw whether he understood that he might  

                                                                                                                           



make  the  wrong  tactical  decisions  during  trial  because  of  his  lack  of  training  and  

                                                                                                                              



                                                              -  6 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

experience.          Hinshaw responded  that he would take his time and that "[i]f I  don't  

                                                                                                                            



understand how to proceed or where to go next, I need to research."   Hinshaw also  

                                                                                                                              



conceded that the trial court would be unable to help him and said that the court was  

                                                                                                                              



"like a coach on a basketball game" who remained "on the sideline" and was supposed  

                                                                                                                      



to be "fair, impartial, and unbiased."  

                                        



                    The trial court again emphasized the likelihood that Hinshaw would make  

                                                                                                                            



errors if he proceeded pro se :  

                                         



                               The Court:   Do you understand that because of the  

                                                                                                           

                    things I just mentioned might happen, you might screw up  

                                                                                                            

                    argument,  you  might  screw  up  jury  selection,  you  might  

                                                                                                      

                    screw up the case because you make the wrong decision, you  

                                                                                                           

                    might fail to object to the evidence, that - that it's likely to  

                                                                                                             

                    mean it is more likely than not that you will be convicted at  

                                                                                         

                    trial?  



                              Mr. Hinshaw :  I understand what you're saying, and I  

                                                                                                               

                    understand what I'm - what I'm facing, yes.  

                                                                                    



                               The      Court:          I    want      you      to     understand          the  

                                                                                                         

                    consequences. If you proceed on your own, it is more likely  

                                                                                                       

                    than not, you will be convicted.  

                                                      



                              Mr. Hinshaw :  I'm familiar with the saying.  

                                                                                       



The court then repeated its opinion that Hinshaw was "more likely than not" going to be  

                                                                                                                                 



convicted of murder if he proceeded without a lawyer, and he asked Hinshaw if he  

                                                                                                                                



understood. Hinshaw stated, "No, I don't understand that," disagreeing with the court's  

                                                                                                                          



opinion of his chances at trial.  

                                        



                    Following  this  exchange,  the  court  began  asking  Hinshaw  about  his  

                                                                                                                               



education and experience with the criminal justice system.  Hinshaw stated that he had  

                                                                                                                               



a G.E.D. and attended high school with a 4.0 grade point average.  Hinshaw admitted  

                                                                                                                       



that this would be the first case in which he went to trial. He also acknowledged that the  

                                                                                                                                



                                                              -  7 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

resources he would have access to in his pretrial facility were "severely lacking."  He  

                                                                                                                                



stated that he would have access to a computer with no printer, and access to the law  

                                                                                                                               



library for about an hour a day, Monday through Friday.  

                                                                            



                    When questioned, Hinshaw was able to tell the court the maximum penalty  

                                                                                                                          



he faced for each charge.  

                            



                    The trial court then asked Hinshaw why he wanted to represent himself.  

                                                                                                                         



Hinshaw told the court he wanted to represent himself because "I feel as long as I've  

                                                                                                                          



been in the pretrial process, nothing's happened. There [were] motions filed. What were  

                                                                                                                              



the  rulings?          Never  received  a  single  one."                   He  also  was  displeased  with  being  

                                                                                                                            



represented  by  "three  different  attorneys"  and  having  "little to  no  notice"  that  the  

                                                                                                                                



attorneys would resign.  The trial court asked if he knew that he would waive claims to  

                                                                                                                                  



ineffective assistance of counsel if he proceeded pro se . Hinshaw initially said he did not  

                                                                                                                                



understand. After the court explained this legal concept further, Hinshaw indicated that  

                                                                                                                                



he understood.  

      



                    Hinshaw explained that he was dissatisfied with his current attorney.  He  

                                                                                                                                



disagreed with the attorney's decision not to interview witnesses or investigate further  

                                                                      



and maintained  that the attorney  did  not provide him with  copies of  the  evidence.  

                                                                                                                                      



Ultimately, he felt that the attorney did not want him to play "an intricate part in [his]  

                                                                                                                              



own defense."  Hinshaw felt that the defense attorney just wanted him "to be there so  

                                                                                                                                  



they can do what they want to do."  He stressed, "He's not the one that's left to be held  

                                                                                                                              



responsible.  I am.  I'm in here.  I'm the one that has to go to jail.  If they come back and  

                                                                                                                                



say, guilty, I'm the one that has to do the time."  

                                                                 



                    When the court said it seemed like Hinshaw wanted to represent himself  

                                                                                                                          



because he was "mad" at counsel, Hinshaw asserted:  

                                                                    



                    No, that's not why.  I don't trust them.  I don't feel - I don't  

                                                                                                         

                    - I don't feel not - there has not been anything done to  

                                                                                                              



                                                               -  8 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                     show me that they're worthy  to defend  me.                               [If] I  had  a  

                                                                                                               

                     competent attorney or one that wasn't negligent or one that  

                                                                                                            

                     wasn't undercutting all his efforts, I'd be more than willing  

                                                                                                       

                     to go to trial.  

                                   



Hinshaw noted that he had felt comfortable with one of his prior counsel, but he now felt  

                                                                                                                                 



that things were not getting done on his behalf.  He stated that he understood the gravity  

                                                                                                                           



 of trial:  "It's not because I'm upset.  Yeah, I'm - I'm nervous.  I'm tense.  It - this is  

                                                                                                                                    



the rest of my life we're dealing with here.  [I] understand it all."  He continued, "I want  

                                                                                                                               



to be cautious. I want to take the necessary, you know, the means necessary - the steps.  

                                                                                                                                       



All that.  I want to make sure that I have a say so.  I'm not closed to comment.  I - I  

                                                                                                                                     



 don't - I listen to what you tell me.  I listen to what everybody tells me, but I have an  

                                                                                                                                   



 independent judgment of my own."  

                                                         



                     The court then asked the prosecutor to explain what the trial likely would  

                                                                                                                            



 involve.   The prosecutor stated that she anticipated a trial of three weeks with jury  

                                                                                                                               



 selection and approximately fifteen to twenty witnesses by the State. She said that there  

                                                                                                                               



would be two experts who would likely testify - the medical examiner, to discuss the  

                                                                                                                                 



 cause of death, and a criminologist who examined bullet fragments found in the car -  

                                                                                                                                  



 as well as crime scene detectives who conducted the preliminary investigation.  

                                                                                                                           



                     The trial court asked the defense attorney if he had a position on Hinshaw's  

                                                                                                                      



motion.  The defense attorney acknowledged that Hinshaw had a constitutional right to  

                                                                                                                                   



represent himself but noted that he had "attempted to explain to [Hinshaw] that this is  

                                                                                                                                   



 sheer foolishness." The attorney told a story about a previous client who had proceeded  

                                                                                                                      



pro se with the attorney as his legal advisor.  At trial, the victim testified and could not  

                                                                                                                                 



 identify the defendant. Contrary to the defense attorney's advice, the defendant decided  

                                                                                                                          



to cross-examine the victim.  After hearing the defendant's voice and mannerisms, the  

                                                                                                                                 



victim was able to identify the defendant.  The defendant is now serving life in prison.  

                                                                                                                                       



                                                               -  9 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

The defense attorney stressed, "And I hope that Mr. Hinshaw's heard this story, and I  

                                                                                                                                    



hope that he takes it to heart."  

                                    



                    The court noted that the defense attorney's story was "a good illustration  

                                                                                                                     



of one of the risks that you run here." The court again asserted that "if you're untrained  

                                                                                                                       



in the law and in the procedure, which you are, and you get up there and start opening  

                           



your mouth, you may be - you may start implicating yourself in front of the jury and  

                                                                                                                                



start convicting yourself."  Hinshaw responded that he appreciated this:  "I understand  

                                                                                                                    



that's a possible consequence and the result of any action I take.  Yes, I do, very clearly  

                                                                                                                           



and well aware of it.  I understand that."  Hinshaw also distinguished his case from the  

                                                                                                                                



defense attorney's previous client.  He noted that they had different criminal histories  

                                                                                                                        



and that there was not the same potential issue related to his identification.  

                                                                                                                    



                    Hinshawindicatedthathewas awareofthecase'scomplexity and that there  

                                                                                                                              



were "a number of things I have never seen. Things I don't have. Things that I need and  

                                                                                                                                



I - I have to see.  Things I have to know about beforehand not after and not during."  

                                                                                                                                      



But, as he stated, "I don't need to sit back and not have a part of my defense.  It's my  

                                                                                                                                



right to remain silent.  It's - it's my right to make the State prove everything beyond  

                                                                                      



a reasonable doubt.  That is my right.  I understand that."  

                                                                                



                    Hinshaw again stated that he had issues with his attorney.  He questioned  

                                                                                                                     



whether his attorney's behavior stemmed from his "personal opinions and assumptions"  

                                                                                                                 



about Hinshaw.  Hinshaw concluded,  

                                                           



                               [O]bviously,           the     impression          I'm      getting       from  

                                                                                                       

                    everybody in this courtroom right now is that my lack of  

                                                                                                             

                    education  or  whatever,  my  age,  my  lack  of  experience,  

                                                                                              

                    doesn't make me an intelligent individual.   I think you all  

                                                                                                             

                    understand I can speak and I can talk.   I know how to be  

                                                                                                             

                    patient.  I'll deal with the stuff as it comes.  

                                                                                        



                                                              -  10 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                    At this point, the defense attorney asked about the items Hinshaw believed  

                                                                                                                        



the  attorney  had  not  provided.                     Hinshaw  replied  that  he  wanted  "crime  scene  

                                                                                                                           



photographs" and evidence of "gunshot residue testing," among other things.   The  

                                                                                                                              



attorney replied that he would provide the evidence.  

                                                                                  



                    Hinshaw  noted  that  the  real  issue  was  that  the  defense  attorney  only  

                                                                                                                             



volunteered this information "after three years," a civil lawsuit against him, and a pro se  

                                                                                                                                 



motion.  In response, the court said it did not "care how much time has elapsed," as the  

                                                                                                                                



attorney was now offering to provide the information.  

                                                                



                    When Hinshaw asked the court how "comfortable" it felt with the quality  

                                                                                                                          



of the defense attorney's representation, the court responded that it was "more worried  

                                                                                                                        



about" Hinshaw "making a decision to represent [himself] that might end up being a  

                                                                                                                                  



horrendous mistake."  Hinshaw replied that he did not "plan on making any mistakes."  

                                                                                                                                     



The court then stated, "That's what I'm afraid of.   You don't plan on making any  

                                                                                                                              



mistakes."  Hinshaw stated that he planned on succeeding because a person does not  

                                                                                                                               



"plan to fail."   At that point, the court indicated that it would take the matter under  

                                                                                                                           



advisement.  

                    



                    The court then asked the prosecutor if there were any areas of inquiry it  

                                                                                                                                  



forgot to cover. The prosecutor noted that she had a checklist and that the court had been  

                                                                                                                             



"verycomprehensive." Theprosecutor also reminded the court to makespecificfindings  

                                                                                                                        



in its decision.  

                         



                    The court scheduled a pretrial conference and ordered the defense attorney  

                                                                                                                        



to provide Hinshaw with discovery as well as copies of pleadings and court orders that  

                                                                                                                               



had been filed.  

                



                    Before ending the hearing, the trial court asked Hinshaw how he planned  

                                                                                                                        



to  conduct  an  investigation  of  the  crime  scene  if  he  proceeded pro  se  given  his  

                                                                                                                               



incarceration.   Hinshaw intended to "[h]ire experts and investigators."   During this  

                                                                                                                 



                                                             -  11 -                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

exchange, the State interjected and asked how Hinshaw planned to pay for an expert.                                                                                                                                             



Hinshaw did not realize that would be an issue.                                                            



                                  The defense attorney then asked the court to clarify its position on the                                                                           



disclosure   of   certain   confidential   records.     The   attorney   explained   that   he   was   not  



permitted   to   provide   copies   to   Hinshaw   under   Alaska   Criminal   Rule   16   (the   rule  



governing discovery in criminal cases), but he could sit with Hinshaw to review the                                                                                                                                  



records. The attorney stated that the "issue has been Mr. Hinshaw won't come out of his                                                                                                                               



cell to see me."                          Hinshaw explained that the real issue was the representation and that                                                                                                     



this was "just a symptom of the problem."                                                                     



                                  Thetrial              court againdeclared it would takethematter under advisement and                                                                                              



concluded the hearing.                



                                  The trial court's order denying Hinshaw's request to proceed pro se  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                  A few days  later,  the trial court issued  a short written  order, denying  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



Hinshaw's motion to proceed pro se .  The trial court found that "Hinshaw understands  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



the role of counsel before trial, during trial, and in post-trial proceedings."  The court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                



also found that "Hinshaw recognizes that he faces serious charges in this case and that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



his  conviction  could  result  in  a  life-time  sentence."                                                                                   The  court  acknowledged  that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Hinshaw exhibited "a minimal understanding of criminal procedure" and could "express  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



his positions clearly."  The court nevertheless concluded that it was "not convinced that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Hinshaw 'knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.'"11  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                     The court  



                   

further stated:  



                                                                                                                                                                               

                                  The court is not satisfied that Hinshawfullyunderstands what  

                                                                                                                                                               

                                  he is giving up by proceeding without a lawyer.  Hinshaw's  



         11      The court drew this language from  McCracken , 518 P.2d at 89 (quoting                                                                                                               Adams v.  



 United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942)).  



                                                                                                       -  12 -                                                                                                    2729
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                                       motion appears to have been made out of frustration with his                                                                                                           

                                       current and former counsel, and his inability to discharge                                                                                        

                                       counsel. Hinshaw                                     does not recognizethat                                             self-representation  

                                       in a case of this complexity significantly increases his chance                                                                                            

                                       of conviction.                              Nor does Hinshaw appear to appreciate the                                                                                

                                       significance of the tasks and issues he faces at trial.                                                                                 



                                       Hinshaw moved                                      for   reconsideration,   asserting   that he understood                                                                                              "the  



increased   risk   of   conviction   due   to   self-representation"   and   that   he   still   wanted   to  



proceed  pro se                             .  



                                       The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration in a summary order.                                                                                                                                               



                                       Hinshaw's trial and direct appeal                                                                    



                                       Hinshaw proceeded to trial with the same defense attorney representing                                                                                                           



                                                                                                                                                                                                            12  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

him.    Hinshaw was charged with one count of first-degree murder,                                                                                                                                                 two counts of  



                                                                    13                                                                                                                                             14  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

second-degree murder,                                                     one count of first-degree weapons misconduct,                                                                                                  three counts  



                                                                                    15                                                                                                                                                        16  

                                                              

of assault in the third degree,                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                         and one count of tampering with physical evidence.                                                                                                         At  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

trial, the jury acquitted Hinshaw of the murder charges but convicted him of the lesser  



          12        AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A).  



          13        AS 11.41.110(a)(1)-(2) & AS 11.16.110.  



          14        AS 11.61.190(a)(2) & AS 11.16.110.  



          15        AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A) & AS 11.16.110.  



          16        AS 11.56.610(a)(1).  



                                                                                                                      -  13 -                                                                                                                   2729
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

                                                                17  

included offense of manslaughter.                                    The jury also convicted Hinshaw of two counts of                                           

third-degree assault and the evidence tampering charge.                                                  18  



                                                                                                                                                              

                         The trial court sentenced Hinshaw to consecutive sentences of 5 years for  



                                                                                                                                                             

the manslaughter charge, 2 years for each of the assault charges, and 2 years for the  



                                                                                                               

tampering charge, for a composite sentence of 11 years to serve.  



                                                                                                                                                  

                         Hinshaw appealed  his convictions to  this Court.                                                  Hinshaw's appellate  



                                                                                                                                                                

attorney raised only one issue, challenging the trial court's ruling on a pretrial motion to  



                                                                                                                                                  

suppress. She did not challenge the trial court's denial of Hinshaw's motion to represent  



                                                                                                                                                                19  

                                                                                                                                                 

himself.  This Court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum opinion. 



                                                                                                               

                         Hinshaw's post-conviction relief application  



                                                                                                                                                         

                         Following  his  direct  appeal,  Hinshaw  filed  an  application  for  post- 



                                                                                                                                                               

conviction  relief,  alleging  that  his  appellate  counsel  was  ineffective  for  failing  to  



                                                                                                                                  

challenge the trial court's denial of his request to represent himself.  



                                                                                                                                                            

                         To prevail on this claim, Hinshaw was required to prove by clear and  



                                                                                    

convincing evidence:  (1) that the proposed additional issue was significantly stronger  



                                                                                                                                                      

than the issue raised in the appeal; (2) that the appellate attorney had no valid tactical  



                                                                                                                                                             

reason for failing to include this particular issue; and (3) that, if the proposed issue had  



       17    AS 11.41.120.  



       18    The jury acquitted Hinshaw of one count of third-degree assault and the first-degree       



weapons misconduct charge.  



       19  

                                                                       

            Hinshaw  v.  State,  2010  WL  200840,  at  *1-2  (Alaska  App.  Jan.  20,  2010)  

(unpublished).  



                                                                            -  14 -                                                                        2729
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

been included, there is a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the appeal would have                                                      

been different.           20  



                                                                                                                                                 

                       In  support  of  his  claim,  Hinshaw  submitted  the  transcript  of  the  



                                                                                                                                                  

representation hearing and an affidavit from his appellate counsel.  In her affidavit, the  



                                                                                                                        

appellatecounsel stated that sheinadvertentlyfailedto investigatetheself-representation  



                                                                                                                                     

claim.  She also opined that Hinshaw was capable of representing himself.  



                                                                                                                                                     

                       The State moved to dismiss Hinshaw's application, arguing that it failed to  



                                                                                                                                     

state a prima facie  case for relief.  The superior court agreed and dismissed Hinshaw's  



                                                   

application on its pleadings.  



                                                                                                                                         

                       Hinshaw appealed the dismissal to this Court.  We reversed the superior  



                                                                                          21  

                                                                                                                                                   

court's order, and remanded for further proceedings.                                          In our decision, we noted that the  



                                                                                                                                                 

transcript of the representation hearing suggested that the self-representation issue was  



                                                                                                                                             22  

                                                                                                                                                  

considerably stronger than the suppression issue raised in Hinshaw's direct appeal.                                                              We  



                                                                                                                                           

also found that the appellate attorney's affidavit suggested that she did not have a tactical  



                                                                                               23  

                                                                                                                                        

reason for failing to raise the self-representation issue.                                          Lastly, we held that Hinshaw  



                                                                                                                                                    

was not required to show that the trial court's ruling actually prejudiced him because an  



      20    See Coffman v. State             , 172 P.3d 804, 813 (Alaska App. 2007) (noting that "the ultimate  



question is whether the attorney's choice of   issues  was   so   ill-considered that it fails to  

demonstrate the minimal competence required of criminal law practitioners").  



      21    Hinshaw  v.  State,  2018  WL  1357350,  at  *4  (Alaska  App.  Mar.  14,  2018)  

                                                                                                                                             

(unpublished).  



      22   Id. at *2-3.  



      23   Id. at *3-4.  



                                                                      -  15 -                                                                  2729
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

erroneous denial of the right to self-representation is structural error,                                                      requiring automatic   



                                                                             24  

reversal without a showing of prejudice.                                          



                                                                                                                                                          

                         On remand, the superior court held a hearing and later issued an order  



                                                                                                                                                             

finding that Hinshaw's appellate attorney had been ineffective and that Hinshaw was  



                                                                                                                                                       

therefore entitled to a new appeal that challenged the trial court's ruling on his motion  



        

for self-representation.  



                                                                     

                         This appeal followed.  



                                                                                                                                          

             Why we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Hinshaw's request  

                                     

             to represent himself  



                                                                                                                                                               

                         The parties agree that the question before us in this appeal is whether the  



                                                                                                                                                       

trial court erred when it denied Hinshaw's request to represent himself.   The parties  



                                                                                                                                                       

disagree, however, regarding the standard of review that should apply to the trial court's  



               

ruling.  



                                                                                                                                                     

                         Hinshaw asserts that the standard of review should be de novo because  



                                                                                                                                                        

whether a defendant's waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent is generally treated  



                                                                       25  

                                                                                                                                                       

as a mixed question of fact and law.                                          The State argues that the standard of review  



      24     Id. at *4.  



      25     See McIntire v. State                  , 42 P.3d 558, 561 (Alaska App. 2002) ("A review of Alaska                                          



cases establishes that this court independently reviews the record to determine whether the   

defendant knowingly and intelligently waived counsel; we will not defer to the trial court.");     

Evans v. State, 822 P.2d 1370, 1374-76 (Alaska App. 1991); James v. State , 739 P.2d 1314,  

 1316 (Alaska App. 1987); see also Henry v. State                                         ,  2021 WL 3909975, at *3 (Alaska App.  

Sept. 1, 2021) (unpublished) ("This Court independently reviews the record to determine if   

a waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.");                                            Gladden v. State, 110 P.3d 1006, 1009  

(Alaska  App.  2005)  ("We   independently review                                           the  record  to   determine  if   a  waiver  of  

counsel was knowing and intelligent.").  



                                                                            -  16 -                                                                         2729
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

should be abuse of discretion, pointing to cases in which we have used that standard to                                                                 

review a trial court's ruling denying a defendant's request to represent themselves.                                                                26  



                                                                                                                                                      

                        Our case law on this question is mixed.  The State is correct that there are  



                                                                                                                                                 

cases where we have used an abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court's denial  



                                                                                      27  

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                           The Alaska Supreme Court has also  

of a defendant's request to represent themselves. 



                                                                                                                                                   

used an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the denial of a request for self- 



                                                                                28  

                                                                                     

representation in a child-in-need-of-aid case. 



                                                                                                                                                  

                        But, as Hinshaw points out, these cases have often involved the trial court  



                                                                                                                                                    

denying a defendant their right to self-representation on grounds other than whether their  



                                                                                                                                                     

waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. In Falcone v. State, for example, the trial  



                                                                                                                                                       

court denied the defendant's request to represent himself because the court found that the  



                                                                                                                                           

defendant was not capable of presenting his case in a coherent fashion and was incapable  



                                                                                               29  

                                                                                                                                        

of conforming to the orderly procedures of the court.                                               Likewise, in Barry H. v. State,  



      26    See, e.g., Falcone v. State, 227 P.3d 469, 473 (Alaska App. 2010); Ramsey v. State,  



                                                 

834 P.2d 811, 815 (Alaska App. 1992); Gargan v. State, 805 P.2d 998, 1000-01 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                    

App. 1991); see also Bourdon v. State, 2018 WL 3933557, at *3 (Alaska App. Aug. 15,  

                                      

2018) (unpublished); Tix v. State, 2011 WL 2437680, at *5-6 (Alaska App. June 15, 2011)  

(unpublished).  



      27    See Falcone, 227 P.3d at 473; Ramsey, 834 P.2d at 815.  



      28    Barry H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 404 P.3d 1231, 1235 (Alaska 2017).  

                                                                           

We  note,  however,  that  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court  has  never  squarely  held  there  is  a  

                                                                                                                                 

constitutional right to self-representation in these proceedings.   See Matthew H. v. State  

                                                                                                                 

Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. , 397 P.3d 279, 283 n.8 (Alaska 2017).  



      29    Falcone, 227 P.3d at 471-72.  



                                                                        -  17 -                                                                    2729
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

the trial court denied a parent's request to represent himself based on evidence that he                                               

was incapable of comporting himself with a "modicum of courtroom decorum."                                                             30  



                                                                                                                                      

                       We  note  that  the  question  of  the  proper  standard  of  review  is  further  



                                                                                                                            

complicated by the fact that the right to self-representation is a federal constitutional  



                                                                                                                                             

right.  Federal courts have primarily treated the question as a mixed question of law and  



                                                                        31  

                                                                                                                                                

fact or otherwise applied de novo review                                    - except for cases where the request is  



                                                                                                     32  

                                                                                                                                             

untimely,  which  are  reviewed  for  an  abuse  of  discretion.                                           However,  because  we  



                                                                                                                                               

conclude that the outcome in this case would be the same regardless of what standard of  



                                                                                                                      

review applies, we need not resolve this question of law in this case.  



                                                                                                                                      

                       Here, the parties agree that Hinshaw was competent to represent himself  



                                                                                                                                         

and that he was capable of presenting his case in a coherent fashion without being  



                                                                                                                                  

disruptive.  The only dispute is whether Hinshaw's waiver was knowing and intelligent  



                                                                                                                                              

- i.e., whether Hinshaw understood "precisely what he [was] giving up by declining the  



                                      33  

                                                                                                                                

                                           The trial court concluded that, although Hinshaw understood  

assistance of counsel." 



                                                                                                                                  

the role of counsel and the advantages of proceeding with counsel, he did not really  



                                                                                                                                         

understand the disadvantages of proceeding pro se  - i.e., according to the trial court,  



      30   Barry H., 404 P.3d at 1235-36.  



      31   See United States v. Balsiger, 910 F.3d 942, 951-52 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v.  



Turner, 897 F.3d 1084, 1102 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Mesquiti, 854 F.3d 267, 271  

(5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Conklin, 835 F.3d 800, 801-02 (8th Cir. 2016); United States  

                                                                                                                          

v. Kosow, 400 F. App'x 698, 700 (3d Cir. 2010);  United States v. Garey, 540 F.3d 1253,  

 1268 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Owen, 407 F.3d 222, 225 (4th Cir. 2005);  United  

States v. Hughes, 191 F.3d 1317, 1323 (10th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458,  

464-65 (1938).  



      32  

                   

           See Robards v. Rees, 789 F.2d 379, 384 (6th Cir. 1986) (reviewing, for abuse of  

                                                                                                                                    

discretion, denial of request for self-representation when request made on day of trial).  



      33   See McCracken v. State, 518 P.2d 85, 91-92 (Alaska 1974).  

                                       



                                                                    -  18 -                                                                2729
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

"Hinshaw   does  not  recognize   that   self-representation   in   a   case   of   this   complexity  



significantly increases his chance of conviction."                                            



                         But the fact that Hinshaw did not fully accept the trial court's opinion that                                                      



it   would   be   a   bad   idea   for   him to                      represent   himself   is   not   a   ground   on   which   his  



constitutional   right   to   self-representation   could   be   denied.     As   already   noted,   the  



constitutional right to self-representation exists notwithstanding the fact that it is almost                                                         



                                                                         34  

always an ill-advised or foolish choice.                                                                                                                

                                                                             Unlike many of the other constitutional rights  



                                                                                                                                                           

held  by  criminal  defendants,  the  constitutional  right  to  self-representation  is  not  



                                                                                                                                                               

grounded in concerns about a fair trial.  Instead, it is grounded in principles related to  



                                                                                                                   35  

                                                                                                                                                       

"the autonomy of the individual" and "freedom of choice."                                                                 As the United States  



                                                                       

Supreme Court explained in Faretta :  



                                                                                                                             

                         The right to defend is personal.  The defendant, and not his  

                                                                                                                                        

                         lawyer or the State, will bear the personal consequences of a  

                                                                                                                                  

                         conviction.  It is the defendant, therefore, who must be free  

                                                                                                                                       

                         personally to decide whether in his particular case counsel is  

                                                                                                                                 

                         to his advantage.   And although he may conduct his own  

                                                                                                                                     

                         defense ultimately to his own detriment, his choice must be  

                                                                                                                                    

                         honored out of "that respect for the individual which is the  



                                                                 [36]  

                                                        

                         lifeblood of the law." 



                                                                                                                                                   

Indeed, Hinshaw directly echoed these sentiments at the self-representation hearing,  



                                                                                                                                                             

explaining that he wanted to represent himself because "[the defense attorney]'s not the  



      34    See, e.g., James v. State , 730 P.2d 811, 814 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) ("Except in the  



                                                                                                                                 

most unusual circumstances, a trial in which one side is unrepresented by counsel is a farcical  

effort to ascertain guilt." (quoting 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 6-3.6 cmt. at 6.39  

(2d. ed. 1982))).  



      35    McCracken , 518 P.2d at 91; see also McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 176-77  



(1984) ("The right to appear pro se  exists to affirm the dignity and autonomy of the accused  

                                                                                                                                              

. . . .").  



      36    Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 (1975).  



                                                                           -  19 -                                                                        2729
  


----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

 one that's left to be held responsible.                                      I am.  I'm in here.  I'm the one that has to go to   



jail.   If they come back and say, guilty, I'm the one that has to do the time."                                                                            



                           Because a defendant's decision to waive counsel and self-represent is so                                                                        



 often a bad one, there are procedures that must be followed before a defendant's motion                                                                         



                                                                  37  

                                                                                                                                                                        

to proceed            pro se        can be granted.                    As already explained, when a defendant clearly and  



                                                                                                                                                                     

unequivocally declares their desire to proceed pro se , the trial court must hold a self- 



                                                                                                                                                                      

representation hearing in which the trial court describes the benefits of proceeding with  



                                                                                                                                 38  

                                                                                                                                                                        

 counsel and the dangers of self-representation "in some detail."                                                                      The purpose of this  



                                                                                                                                                             

hearing is to ensurethatthedefendant's decision to waive their constitutionally protected  



                                                                                                                                                           

right to counsel is a knowing and intelligent one.  It is also to ensure that the defendant  



                                                                                                                                                                           

 is "minimally capable of presenting their case in a coherent fashion" and "capable of  



                                                                                                                             39  

                                                                                                      

 conducting their defense without being unusually disruptive." 



                                                                                                                                                      

                           These procedures were followed in this case. Thetrial court's explanations  



                                                                                                                                                                       

 of  the  benefits  of  counsel  and  the  dangers  of  self-representation  were  lengthy  and  



                                                                                                                                                                         

 detailed, and the hearing took nearly an hour to complete.  Hinshaw's responses to the  



                                                                                                                                                    

trial court's questions were coherent and intelligent.  Hinshaw repeatedly demonstrated  



       37     See Oviuk v. State, 180 P.3d 388, 390 (Alaska App. 2008) ("A defendant who chooses   



to  represent  himself   or  herself   takes  on  a  difficult  task.    And,  before  a   judge  allows  a  

 defendant  to  exercise  the  right  of   self-representation,  the  judge  must  first  inform   the  

 defendant  of   the  dangers  of   self-representation  and  must  explain  the  advantages  of   the  

 assistance of counsel.").  



       38     McCracken , 518 P.2d at 91-92; see also Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 88-89 (2004)  

                                                           

 (noting that "before a defendant may be allowed to proceed pro se , he must be warned  

                                                                                  

 specifically of the hazards ahead").  

                         



       39     Oviuk,  180  P.3d  at  390  (quoting  Lampley  v.  State ,  33  P.3d  184,  189  (Alaska  

                                      

App. 2001)).  



                                                                                  - 20 -                                                                              2729
  


----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

  an understanding of what the trial court had explained to him, even if Hinshaw did not                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



  always agree with the trial court about the wisdom of his decision to proceed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          pro se                                .    



                                                                           On appeal, theStatepoints to placesintherecord whereHinshawexpressed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



  what was likely an unrealistic assessment of how well he would be able to represent                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



  himself.    For example, when the trial court stated that it was worried that Hinshaw                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



  representing himself would be "a horrendous mistake," Hinshaw replied that "I don't                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



  plan on making any mistakes.  I plan on . . . succeeding."  Hinshaw then followed this                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



  statement with the reasonable observation that a person does not "plan to fail."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Indeed,  



  if the only people who were allowed to represent themselves were people who                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                planned  



  on failing, it is difficult to see how the right to self-representation would ever have any                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



  practical meaning.                                                                                      Disagreeing with the trial court about the wisdom of proceeding                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



pro se                              does not automatically mean that a defendant is not knowingly and intelligently                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



  waiving their right to counsel. It may, in some circumstances, suggest that the defendant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



  is delusional and incapable of proceeding                                                                                                                                                                                        pro se                              , but it should not be used as conclusive                                                                                                                



  proof that the defendant has failed to execute a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



  when the record affirmatively shows otherwise.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                           This point of law is made clear in a number of federal cases, including cases                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



  where the federal courts have reversed state courts under facts very similar to those                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



  presented here.                                                                      In  Imani v. Pollard                                                                                              , for example, the Seventh Circuit granted federal                                                                                                                                                                                         



  habeas relief to a state prisoner, holding that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's affirmance                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



  of the trial court's denial of his request for self-representation was "contrary to and an  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

  unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by United  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                40  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

  States Supreme Court decisions . . . ."                                                                                                                                                                                     In Imani, the trial court denied the defendant's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

  request to proceed pro se , in part, because it found that Imani did not have a "sufficiently  



                    40                Imani v. Pollard , 826 F.3d 939, 942 (7th Cir. 2016).  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                               - 21 -                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2729
  


----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

rational basis" to justify his decision.                            The trial court described Imani's decision to                              



proceed  pro se           as "a flippant short term or immature decision" that was driven by his                                              



                                                                  41  

attorney's  loss  of  a  suppression  motion.                          The  Wisconsin  Supreme  Court  later  affirmed  

this  ruling.42  



                                                                                                                                              

                       On federal habeas review, the Seventh Circuit criticized the state courts for  



                                                                                                                                           

"requir[ing] Imani to persuade the trial judge that he had a good reason to choose self- 



                           43  

representation."                                                                                                                             

                                  The  Seventh  Circuit  pointed  out  that  "a  defendant's  reason  for  



                                                                                                                                       

choosing to represent himself is immaterial" and "[d]efending pro se will almost always  



                                                                                                                                         44  

                                                                                                                             

be foolish, but the defendant has the right to make that choice, for better or worse."                                                        As  



                                                     

the Seventh Circuit explained:  



                                                                                                                  

                       Only in rare cases will a trial judge view a defendant's choice  

                                                                                                                          

                       to represent himself as anything other than foolish or rash.  A  

                                                                                                                   

                      judge does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights  

                                                                                                                     

                      by  explaining the risks to the  defendant in detail and then  

                                                                                                                       

                       giving him time to think it over before the defendant (but not  

                                                                                                                          

                       the judge)  makes the final decision.   . . .  But in the end a  

                                                                                                             

                       competent defendant has a constitutional right to represent  

                                                                                                                    

                       himself even if the judge  thinks the defendant has no good  

                                                                                                                       

                       reason to do so.  It is the trial judge's job  to make sure the  

                                                                                                                         

                       defendant makes  that  choice with  open  eyes.   Nothing  in  

                                                                                                                      

                      Faretta  or  its  progeny  allows  the  judge  to  require  the  

                                                                                                                       

                       defendant to prove he is making the choice for a reason the  



                                                               [45]  

                                           

                      judge  finds satisfactory. 



      41   Id.  



      42   Id. at 943.  



      43   Id. at 944.  



      44   Id. (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)).  



      45   Id.  at 945; see also Oviuk v. State, 180 P.3d 388, 391 (Alaska App. 2008) (holding that  



                                                                                                                             (continued...)  



                                                                    - 22 -                                                                 2729
  


----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                         46  

                              The Ninth Circuit made a similar point in                                                    United States v. Arlt                        .     In that   



 case, the Ninth Circuit                               focused on the depth and breadth of the self-representation                                  



 inquiry, noting that the district judge "vigorously warned Arlt about the dangers of self-                                                                                         



 representation," particularly in a complex conspiracy case, "explicitly told Arlt that the                                                                                            



pro se         motion he had filed made clear that his legal skills were wholly inadequate," and                                                                                      



 "stated quite plainly that Arlt would not be successful at trial without an attorney to                                                                                                 



                                  47  

 represent him."                                                                                                                                                                         

                                        After reviewing the record, the Ninth Circuit concluded, "There is no  



                                                                                                                                                                             

 indication  on  the  record  that  Arlt  was  not  capable  of  comprehending  the  judge's  



                                                                                                                                                                                          48  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

 explanations or that he did not actually understand the consequences of his decision." 



                                                                                                                                                                             

 As the court explained, "[T]he mere fact that Arlt did not heed the district judge's  



                                                                                                                                                                     

 warning does not indicate that his waiver was uninformed or unintelligent, particularly  



                                                                                                                                                                                     

 since Arlt expressly indicated that he understood the district judge's warnings and was  



                                                  49  

                                    

 not deterred by them." 



                                                                                                                                                                             

                              Here, as in Imani and Arlt , the record indicates that Hinshaw was capable  



                                                                                                                                                                                         

 of understanding the dangers of self-representation and the benefits of counsel, and he  



                                                                                                                                                                                         

 repeatedly asserted that he did understand the trial court's warnings regarding what he  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

 would be giving up if he proceeded pro se .  In contrast, the trial court's conclusion that,  



                                                                                                                                                                                         

 notwithstanding these verbal assurances, Hinshaw did not "fully understand" what he  



        45     (...continued)  



 the fact that the defendant would be shackled during trial did not, standing alone, justify the  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

 trial court's denial of defendant's request to represent himself, as the defendant "must be  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

 given the choice whether to persist in self-representation despite . . . potential prejudice").  



        46      United States v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1994).  



        47     Id.  



        48     Id.  



        49     Id.  



                                                                                         - 23 -                                                                                     2729
  


----------------------- Page 24-----------------------

was giving up by proceeding without counsel is not supported by the record and appears                                                                     



to be based on a standard of "knowing and intelligent" waiver that would be impossible                                                              



                                                    50  

for any defendant to meet.                               



                                                                                                                                                                     

                          The trial court's reliance on the fact that Hinshaw's motion "appears to  



                                                                                                                                                         

have been made out of frustration with his current and former counsel and his inability  



                                                                                                                                                                       

to discharge counsel" was also misguided.  As the federal courts have emphasized, a  



                                                                                                                                                                   

defendant does not need to prove to the trial court that they have a "good reason" for  



                                                                                                                                                                      51  

                                                                                                                                                                           

proceeding pro se in order to knowingly and intelligently waive their right to counsel. 



                                                                                                                                                                  

Moreover,  the  law  is  clear  that  the  fact  that  a  defendant  makes  a  request  for  



                                                                                                                                                                   

self-representation only because the court refuses to appoint substitute counsel does not  



                                                                                                                               52  

                                                                                                                                     

make the request equivocal or the waiver of counsel involuntary. 



                                                                                                                                                                 

                          In the seminal case of Faretta, the record "affirmatively show[ed] that  



                                                                                                                                                      

Farettawasliterate, competent,and understanding, and that hewas voluntarilyexercising  



       50    See Burks v. State, 748 P.2d 1178, 1182-83 (Alaska App. 1988) (Coats, J., dissenting)  



("The trial judge should attempt to discourage a defendant from representing himself.  If he  

                                                                                                                                                                     

insists,  however,  the  defendant  must  be  allowed  to  represent  himself  if  he  is  able  to  

                                                                                                                                               

knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel and has certain minimum competence  

                                                                                                                                                    

to conduct a defense."); see also Falcone v. State, 227 P.3d 469, 472 (Alaska App. 2010)  

                                                                                                

("The right of self-representation may be restricted only in narrow circumstances 'in order  

                                                                                                           

to prevent a perversion of the judicial process.'" (quoting McCracken v. State , 518 P.2d 85,  

                                                 

91 (Alaska 1974))).  



       51    Imani v. Pollard, 826 F.3d 939, 944-45 (7th Cir. 2016); Faretta v. California, 422  



U.S. 806, 834-35 (1975).  



       52    See Massey v. State,  435 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Alaska App. 2018); see also State v.  

                                                       

Jordan , 44 A.3d 794, 809 (Conn. 2012) (requesting self-representation as an alternative to  

substitute counsel does not make request equivocal); Moore v. Haviland , 531 F.3d 393, 402  

(6th Cir. 2008) ("Moore's request to proceed pro se  was no less voluntary because it was  

                                                                                                                                              

contingent on the denial of other options that he might also find palatable.").  



                                                                               - 24 -                                                                           2729
  


----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

                                                   53  

his informed free will."                                Because the record in Hinshaw's case shows the same, we                                                                     



conclude that the trial court erred when it denied Hinshaw's motion to represent himself.                                                                                                   



               Conclusion  



                             For the reasons explained here, we REVERSE Hinshaw's convictions and  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



REMAND this case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



opinion. We note that double jeopardy has attached to the acquittals, and any retrial will  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



therefore be limited to the crimes for which Hinshaw was previously convicted.  

                                                                                                                                                                              



       53     Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835.  



                                                                                       - 25 -                                                                                   2729
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC