State v. Hofland, 2012 ME 129

Hofland, involved in a roadblock incident, allegedly pulled a gun and fled, spending eight days evading police.
On Oct 31, 2008, Hofland entered Stockton Springs Elementary School gym with a loaded handgun attempting to gather children into a bathroom.
He pointed the gun at school officials and forced his way into a classroom, holding fifth-grade students against their will until police arrived.
On Dec 30, 2008, Hofland was indicted for four counts of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, eleven counts of criminal restraint with a dangerous weapon, twenty-two counts of kidnapping, one count of burglary, and one count of criminal restraint.
Hofland pled not guilty and later added a not criminally responsible by reason of insanity defense.
A bifurcated trial in January 2011 led to guilty verdicts on most counts and a separate phase finding criminal responsibility; sentencing imposed a 30-year and a 5-year term consecutive, with two smaller sentences concurrent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial denial	Hofland	Hofland asserts denial of speedy-trial rights	Court did not abuse discretion; Barker factors applied after prejudice presumed.
Right to self-representation	Hofland	Hofland seeks hybrid representation	Maine does not recognize a right to hybrid representation; pro se with standby counsel allowed.
Second Amendment instruction	Hofland	No instruction needed for Second Amendment right	Jury instructions properly informed on elements; Second Amendment not a defense to charged crimes.
Substantial-period vagueness/sufficiency	Hofland	§ 301(2)(C) vague; confinement not substantial	Statute not impermissibly vague; evidence could show substantial restraint.
Consecutive sentences	Hofland	Consecutive sentences improper for single episode	Court did not abuse discretion; two distinct episodes justified consecutive sentences.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial balancing factors)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits on standby counsel; no hybrid representation right)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; dangers and waivers)
State v. Bettney, 529 A.2d 1356 (Me. 1987) (standby counsel participates with defendant acquiescing not a violation)
State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108 (Me. 1980) (substantial-period concept in kidnapping)
State v. Aboda, 8 A.3d 719 (Me. 2010) (due process; vagueness standard)
State v. Smen, 895 A.2d 319 (Me. 2006) (sufficiency review under light favorable to State)
State v. Witham, 876 A.2d 40 (Me. 2005) (statutory interpretation; definite conduct)
State v. Horr, 831 A.2d 407 (Me. 2003) (consecutive-sentencing limitations)
State v. Commeau, 852 A.2d 70 (Me. 2004) (test for multiple-episode sentencing)
State v. Ward, 21 A.3d 1033 (Me. 2011) (consecutive-sentencing standards)
State v. Downs, 962 A.2d 950 (Me. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard in sentencing)
State v. Fleming, 644 A.2d 1034 (Me. 1994) (limits on consecutive sentences)