Large v. State
2011 WY 159
Wyo.2011Background
- Appellant Large charged with six crimes arising from stealing and crashing a vehicle; trial began September 27, 2010.
- Appellant requested court-appointed counsel; public defender initially appointed and later moved to vacate due to self-representation language.
- Appellant filed pro se motions; competency evaluation ordered amid concerns he would act as his own counsel.
- District court conducted competency evaluation; found capable to proceed; appellant arraigned on the six charges.
- Delays occurred due to appellant's conduct—changing counsel, filing motions, and competency proceedings; court warned about risks of self-representation.
- Jury trial resulted in convictions for two burglary counts and both report offenses; acquitted of larceny; mistrial on interfering with a police officer; conviction affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant received a speedy trial | Largely argues delay violated Sixth Amendment | Delays caused by defendant overwhelmed speedy-trial clock | No Sixth Amendment violation; delays justified and within 180 days after arraignment |
| Whether the district court properly informed appellant of dangers of proceeding without counsel | Court failed to warn of self-representation dangers | Court adequately warned and informed rights | Yes; adequate warnings and informed waiver of counsel |
| Date and computation of arraignment for speedy-trial analysis | Arraignment should be October 28, 2009 | Actual arraignment occurred April 14, 2010; delays attributable to defendant | Arraignment occurred April 14, 2010; delays attributable to appellant |
| Effect of competency proceedings on speedy-trial calculation | Competency delays improperly excluded | Competency-related delays properly excluded under Rule 48 | Delays due to competency proceedings excluded; speedy trial within limits |
| Impact of self-representation waiver on rights | Waiver not voluntary/knowing | Waiver was knowing and voluntary given warnings and inquiries | Waiver knowingly and intelligently made; no violation of right to counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial test)
- Humphrey v. State, 185 P.3d 1236 (Wy. 2008) (applies Barker factors in Wyoming speedy-trial context)
- Berry v. State, 93 P.3d 222 (Wy. 2004) (discusses threshold delay and presumptive prejudice under Barker)
- Strandlien v. State, 156 P.3d 986 (Wy. 2007) (analyzes prejudice and other Barker factors in Wyoming)
- Follett v. State, 132 P.3d 1155 (Wy. 2006) (competency and timing affecting arraignment/trial)
- Hauck v. State, 36 P.3d 597 (Wy. 2001) (competency waivers and right to counsel)
- Van Riper v. State, 882 P.2d 230 (Wy. 1994) (requires court inquiry into understanding of charges and risks of pro se)