State v. Galarneau
2011 ME 60
| Me. | 2011Background
- Galarneau was charged in 2008 with OUI and aggravated HO; he pled not guilty in District Court without a lawyer.
- On August 6, 2008, an information in Superior Court also included a probation-revocation matter; the District Court charges were dismissed.
- At his Superior Court initial appearance on probation violation, Galarneau was represented by the lawyer-for-the-day; the court and lawyer stated he understood his arraignment rights.
- The lawyer-for-the-day advised Galarneau of his rights, and Galarneau pleaded guilty to the new charges and admitted probation violation.
- The court sentenced him on the probation revocation and related charges; a 2008 OUI conviction later served as an enhancement for a 2010 HO charge.
- In 2010, Galarneau moved to strike the prior conviction, arguing illegal imposition due to lack of full counsel; the court denied the motion and he entered a conditional guilty plea under Rule 11(a)(2) on the Class C HO charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did lawyer-for-the-day satisfy the right to counsel? | State contends representation by the day-lawyer sufficed; defendant was effectively represented. | Galarneau argues day-lawyer does not fulfill the constitutional right to counsel or its informed waiver. | No denial of counsel; day-lawyer satisfied the right to counsel. |
| Was the prior conviction valid for use in enhancement if counsel was not full-time? | Prior OUI/HO conviction is valid because Galarneau was represented and advised by the day-lawyer. | Prior conviction should be struck if counsel was not fully appointed and rights not fully waived. | Prior conviction constitutional and may be used to enhance. |
| Was waiver of counsel proper given the representation? | Waiver was effectively made through the day-lawyer's advisement and Galarneau's responses. | Waiver cannot be presumed if there was no explicit waiver of a right to counsel. | Waiver validated; no explicit waiver required beyond informed representation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ouellette, 2006 ME 81 (Me. 2006) (lawyer-for-the-day may accompany arraignment; rights can be advised during initial appearance)
- State v. Watson, 2006 ME 80 (Me. 2006) (right to counsel is a fundamental entitlement)
- State v. Cook, 1998 ME 40 (Me. 1998) (indigent misdemeanor defendant may have right to counsel when imprisonment will be imposed)
- United States v. Proctor, 166 F.3d 396 (1st Cir. 1999) (right to counsel considerations in context of representation)