MARTIN-ARGAW v. the STATE.
343 Ga. App. 864
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Martin-Argaw, subject to a restraining order, went to his estranged wife's home and fired a gun; he was later convicted of related offenses for that incident.
- While jailed in 2006 he repeatedly told a cellmate he wanted three people killed and asked about hiring a hit man; the cellmate informed counsel and prosecutors.
- With the cellmate's help an undercover officer posed as a hit man; Martin-Argaw made two recorded communications (phone and in-person) providing names/addresses, negotiating price, discussing logistics, and expressly requesting the three killings.
- Martin-Argaw was tried in 2014, represented by himself after discharging or declining appointed counsel; a third appointed attorney acted as standby counsel.
- A jury convicted him of three counts of criminal attempt to commit murder; on appeal Martin-Argaw challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to the "substantial step" element and (2) the validity of his waiver of the right to counsel based on inadequate advisement of the dangers of self-representation.
- The Court of Appeals held the evidence was sufficient but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the record did not show a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel — the trial court failed to ensure Martin-Argaw was made aware of the specific dangers of proceeding pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for criminal attempt (substantial step) | Martin-Argaw: no substantial step because he never paid the hit man | State: recordings + identification, providing names/addresses, negotiating price and logistics, and affirmative instruction to proceed showed firmness of purpose | Evidence sufficient; jury was authorized to find a substantial step toward murder-for-hire |
| Validity of waiver of right to counsel / adequacy of advisement of dangers of self-representation | Martin-Argaw: trial court failed to inform him of specific dangers; waiver not knowing/voluntary | State: defendant repeatedly insisted on proceeding pro se and filed a written motion acknowledging risks | Waiver invalid on this record; trial court did not sufficiently ensure defendant knew specific dangers; reversal and remand for new trial |
| Harmless error as to self-representation | State: any error harmless given evidence of guilt | Martin-Argaw: he did not mount an able defense, showing prejudice from self-representation | Court: state failed to show harmlessness; defendant's inadequate, ineffective pro se performance supports reversal |
| Scope of trial-court obligations when defendant asserts right to proceed pro se | Martin-Argaw: required specific advisement of dangers before allowing pro se | State: no fixed formula required; colloquy and repeated warnings were adequate | Court: no particular script required, but record must show defendant was made aware of specific dangers; here it did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Wittschen v. State, 259 Ga. 448 (Ga.) (defining elements of criminal attempt)
- English v. State, 301 Ga. App. 842 (Ga. Ct. App.) (substantial-step analysis in attempt cases)
- Howell v. State, 157 Ga. App. 451 (Ga. Ct. App.) (discussing payments to hit men in attempt context)
- Rana v. State, 304 Ga. App. 750 (Ga. Ct. App.) (reviewing sufficiency under light-most-favorable standard)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S.) (constitutional right to self-representation)
- McDaniel v. State, 327 Ga. App. 673 (Ga. Ct. App.) (state bears burden to show valid waiver; harmless-error principles)
- Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 884 (Ga.) (record must reflect awareness of dangers; no fixed formula required)