State v. Shockey
1 CA-CR 16-0704
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Darren Lee Shockey was arrested after a traffic stop and charged with resisting arrest (felony), aggravated assault (felony), misconduct involving weapons (misdemeanor), and possession of marijuana (felony).
- The public defender's office was appointed to represent Shockey; he filed multiple handwritten "notices" expressing objections to appointed counsel and asserting sui juris/self-representation in various forms.
- Counsel moved to withdraw, citing poor communication and Shockey's expressed desire to represent himself; the court denied the motion and repeatedly admonished Shockey to cooperate with appointed counsel.
- Shockey made only vague, non-specific complaints about representation, refused to sit with counsel at trial, and declined to submit a clear written request to waive counsel or request new counsel.
- A jury convicted Shockey on the felony counts and the court convicted him on the misdemeanor; concurrent sentences were imposed (longest one year).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shockey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated the Sixth Amendment by denying new counsel and failing to hold a Torres hearing | Shockey contended he had an irreconcilable conflict with appointed counsel and repeatedly requested new counsel and a hearing | The State argued Shockey made only vague objections and never raised specific, fact-based allegations requiring a Torres hearing; court had made adequate inquiry | Court held no abuse of discretion: Shockey's statements were general, not factually specific; no hearing was required and court's inquiries were sufficient |
| Whether court erred by not treating Shockey's filings as a clear request to waive counsel and proceed pro se | Shockey pointed to handwritten notices asserting sui juris/self-representation and requested continuances to obtain counsel | The State (and court) treated filings as objections to appointed counsel, not an explicit waiver; court repeatedly instructed Shockey to put a pro se request in writing for a hearing | Court held Shockey never made an explicit written waiver; court gave opportunities and admonitions consistent with Rule and Torres requirements |
| Whether trial counsel's alleged errors on appeal require reversal | Shockey raised criticisms of trial counsel's actions | The State noted ineffective-assistance claims must be raised in Rule 32 proceedings, not on direct appeal | Court noted such claims are not properly raised on direct appeal and must be pursued under Rule 32 |
| Whether court abused discretion in concluding communication breakdown was due to Shockey's noncooperation | Shockey portrayed breakdown as irreconcilable conflict | The State and record supported that lack of cooperation by Shockey, not factual allegations against counsel, caused the breakdown | Court found it reasonable to infer the conflict stemmed from defendant's refusal to cooperate and would likely persist with new counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Torres, 208 Ariz. 340 (Ariz. 2004) (court must inquire into requests for new counsel and hold a formal hearing only when defendant makes specific, factually based allegations)
- State v. Moody, 192 Ariz. 505 (Ariz. 1998) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for substitution-of-counsel decisions)
- State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 (Ariz. 1987) (irreconcilable conflict and whether new counsel would face same conflict are relevant factors)
- State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims belong in post-conviction relief under Rule 32, not on direct appeal)