 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heacock v. State8/17/2005
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 5001
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.
William B. Heacock appeals his convictions for driving while under the influence and fifth-degree criminal mischief. On appeal, Heacock claims that the district court erred when it denied his request for a new trial. He also claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for driving while under the influence. For the reasons explained below, we reject Heacock's claims and affirm his convictions.
Facts and Proceedings
On August 3, 2003, Heacock was arrested for driving while under the influence. Later, after an incident in the police station, he was charged with fifth-degree criminal mischief.
On September 8, 2003, he appeared before District Court Judge Kevin G. Miller for the first of a number of representation hearings. Heacock was generally uncooperative at these hearings. Among other things, he refused to decide whether he wanted to be represented by an attorney.
On January 12, 2004, Judge Miller asked Heacock if he was prepared for trial. Judge Miller told Heacock that the trial would not be delayed any longer, and that Heacock had to declare that he was "either ready for trial or ... going to talk to a lawyer." When Heacock said that he was ready for trial, Judge Miller scheduled it to start the next day at 9:00 a.m.
Later that same day, Heacock again appeared before Judge Miller. He said that, at the urging of his family, he had decided to request that an attorney be appointed to assist him. Judge Miller appointed an attorney. At Heacock's request, trial call was rescheduled.
The case resumed with a trial call on March 8, 2004. There, Heacock's appointed attorney said that Heacock wanted a sixty-day continuance. The attorney also said that "there's a question as to whether [Heacock is] going to be pro se." When Judge Miller asked why a continuance was necessary, Heacock said that his "solicitor not prepared" because the attorney had not yet talked to Heacock's witnesses. But despite his attorney's comment about proceeding pro se, Heacock did not tell Judge Miller that he wanted to represent himself. Rather, Heacock suggested that he proceed with the attorney as co-counsel.
Judge Miller, referring to an incident that had occurred earlier in the day, when Heacock had disrupted the courtroom during an unrelated case, said that he was not going to let him act as co-counsel: "You've ... demonstrated that you cannot control yourself in the courtroom." Heacock then began to recite court rules, despite Judge Miller's request that he not do so.
When Heacock's attorney was asked if he was ready for trial, he said that he was. Heacock requested that the attorney be dismissed, arguing that he had the right to "excuse" him. After Judge Miller denied this request, Heacock asked for co-counsel status. Judge Miller denied this request, finding that Heacock could not behave himself in the courtroom, and could not follow basic rules. Heacock then exclaimed that the court was requiring him to deal with somebody involved "in violating the trading with the enemy act," and that his attorney was really only a professional truck driver. Heacock did not control himself until he was threatened with contempt of
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|