State v. Jack M. Suriano, 893 N.W.2d 543

Background

In 2013 Jack Suriano was charged with obstructing an officer and the State Public Defender (SPD) appointed counsel due to indigence.
Three SPD-appointed attorneys (Erickson, Schaefer, Singh) withdrew within months after conflicts with Suriano; one attorney testified he feared a physical threat from Suriano.
On the record Suriano repeatedly refused to cooperate, sent disparaging emails, micromanaged counsel, and would not answer the court’s direct questions about representation.
The circuit court found Suriano’s conduct frustrated the orderly progression of the case, granted the latest counsel’s withdrawal, and determined Suriano had forfeited his right to appointed counsel; trial proceeded pro se and Suriano was convicted.
The court of appeals affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Suriano forfeited his right to counsel and whether Cummings’ recommended warnings/procedure must be mandatory.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Suriano forfeited his right to counsel by conduct	Suriano did not expressly waive counsel and therefore retained the right; his conduct was not an intentional forfeiture	Suriano’s repeated refusal to cooperate, abusive communications, and causing three attorneys to withdraw forfeited his right to appointed counsel	Forfeiture upheld: voluntary, deliberate conduct frustrating case progression forfeits right to counsel under Cummings
Whether courts must use Cummings’ recommended right-to-counsel warnings/procedure mandatorily in forfeiture cases	Suriano argued warnings/procedural colloquy should be required to safeguard the right to counsel	State argued Cummings’ warnings/procedures are recommended but not mandatory; forfeiture can occur by operation of law	Court held Cummings’ warnings/procedures remain strongly recommended but not required
Whether Wisconsin should adopt Goldberg’s three-tier framework (express waiver, forfeiture, waiver-by-conduct)	Suriano urged adoption of Goldberg’s hybrid approach requiring warnings before treating dilatory conduct as waiver	State urged retaining the two-tier Cummings framework (waiver vs forfeiture) as workable and consistent with precedent	Court declined to adopt Goldberg; reaffirmed two-tier Cummings framework
Whether forfeiture requires proof of specific intent to delay	Suriano argued forfeiture should require intent to delay	State argued intent is not required—court can find forfeiture from voluntary, deliberate conduct that frustrates proceedings	Court held intent to delay not required; effect of conduct suffices to establish forfeiture

Key Cases Cited

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to counsel in felony cases)
State v. Cummings, 199 Wis. 2d 721 (Wis. 1996) (adopted two-tier waiver–forfeiture framework and recommended warnings/procedure)
State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194 (Wis. 1997) (colloquy requirements for knowing, voluntary waiver of counsel)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may forfeit trial rights by disruptive conduct)
United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (three-tier approach: express waiver, forfeiture, waiver by conduct)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (no right to counsel of choice for indigent defendants)