2025 ND 98
N.D.2025Background
- Daedyn Lewellyn was charged with terrorizing in North Dakota in May 2023.
- Over the course of the proceedings, six different court-appointed attorneys represented or were assigned to Lewellyn, with several withdrawing due to conflicts or at Lewellyn's request due to dissatisfaction.
- The trial was continued multiple times, some at Lewellyn’s request related to changing counsel and some due to scheduling conflicts.
- Six days before the rescheduled trial, Lewellyn and his attorney indicated readiness to proceed, but the day before trial Lewellyn fired his attorney and requested another new court-appointed attorney and a continuance.
- The district court denied both requests, citing the case's age, multiple attorney assignments, and repeated continuances already granted.
- Lewellyn represented himself at trial, where he was convicted of terrorizing; he appealed, alleging a violation of his right to counsel and improper denial of his continuance request.
Issues
| Issue | Lewellyn's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel under Sixth Amendment | Court violated right by not appointing new counsel after he fired his previous attorney | Right to counsel is not absolute; repeated changes were unreasonable | No violation; Lewellyn functionally, knowingly, and intelligently waived right to counsel |
| Denial of trial continuance | Court abused discretion by denying continuance when trial was imminent after firing counsel | Denial was reasonable given repeated delays and case history | No abuse of discretion; denial justified by procedural history and timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodriguez, 952 N.W.2d 233 (N.D. 2020) (sets out two-step inquiry for determining if right to counsel was properly waived)
- State v. Yost, 855 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 2014) (right to substitute appointed counsel is limited, especially for difficult defendants)
- State v. Dvorak, 604 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2000) (defendant's conduct can equate to voluntary waiver of right to counsel)
- State v. Hilgers, 685 N.W.2d 109 (N.D. 2004) (standard of review for denial of a continuance is abuse of discretion)