State v. Tull, 1 CA-CR 14-0622

Background

Defendant Clarence Andrew Tull was indicted in a multi-defendant marijuana trafficking investigation after a four-month wiretap probe and tried on multiple felony counts including illegal control of an enterprise, conspiracy, possession and sale/transportation of large amounts of marijuana, money laundering, and numerous wire/electronic communication counts.
Case was designated complex; Defendant went through multiple attorneys and repeatedly refused to cooperate or communicate with court-appointed counsel, asserting a "Moorish-American" sovereignty theory that he claimed deprived the court of jurisdiction.
After counsel moved to withdraw because of a total breakdown in communication, the court conducted an on-the-record inquiry; Defendant refused to answer questions and declined to make a clear written waiver of counsel or an unequivocal request to represent himself.
The court denied Defendant’s request to proceed pro per and denied counsel’s pretrial motion to withdraw; Defendant was tried (with codefendants) before a dual jury in a lengthy trial and convicted on the charged counts.
On appeal, Defendant argued the court erred by denying his request to proceed in propria persona and by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw and to appoint substitute counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow self-representation	State: Court acted properly because Defendant never made an unequivocal, written waiver and refused to cooperate with the court’s inquiry required to ascertain a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver	Tull: He sought to present himself and invoked "Moorish-American" sovereignty to reject court jurisdiction and to refuse counsel	Court: No abuse of discretion; request was not unequivocal, not in writing, and Defendant refused the required colloquy so court properly retained counsel
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw	State: Motion did not establish an ethical conflict or the procedural requirements for substitution; withdrawal would prejudice proceedings	Tull: Counsel should be allowed to withdraw because communication had broken down	Court: No abuse of discretion; motion cited communication failure, not an ethical conflict, and did not comply with substitution rules
Whether the court was required to appoint substitute counsel sua sponte	State: No duty to appoint substitute counsel when defendant did not request it and record shows likelihood new counsel would face same issues	Tull: He argues substitute counsel should have been appointed	Court: No; record shows propensity to change counsel and same sovereignty stance, so appointment not required
Whether permitting self-representation could later invalidate waiver	State: Court correctly avoided allowing an unclear waiver that could be challenged later	Tull: Implicitly: wanted to avoid counsel representation to pursue defense	Court: Noted that an ambiguous allowance might lead to claims of no genuine waiver; court’s approach avoided that risk

Key Cases Cited

Dann v. Arizona, 220 Ariz. 351 (2009) (standards for reviewing denial of self-representation and requirement of knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver)
LaGrand v. State, 152 Ariz. 483 (1986) (defendant has right to competent counsel but not counsel of choice)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to waive counsel and represent oneself under conditions of knowing, intelligent waiver)
Henry v. State, 189 Ariz. 542 (1997) (request for self-representation must be unequivocal)
Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office v. Superior Court (Nelson), 187 Ariz. 162 (1996) (withdrawal required only for ethical conflict requiring withdrawal)
Jones v. State, 185 Ariz. 471 (1996) (standard of review for denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw)
Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. Riley, 165 Ariz. 138 (1990) (pretrial withdrawal for nonpayment considered abuse if no prejudice absent)
Bush v. State, 108 Ariz. 148 (1972) (clear showing of a conflict necessary to require withdrawal)
Okeani v. Superior Court (Romley), 178 Ariz. 180 (1993) (continued representation that would violate ethical rules warrants withdrawal)

Outcome: The appellate court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences.