Iowa v. Tovar (full text)
United States Supreme Court
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004)
Date: 03/08/04
Case No: 02-1541
Issue: Waiver of the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.
Holding:
The Sixth Amendment does not require a court to warn a
pro se defendant who pleads guilty that an attorney would
be useful in providing an independent opinion whether it is wise to
plead guilty and that an attorney may find defenses that a pro
se defendant may overlook. The Court concluded that the
constitutional requirement of the Sixth Amendment is satisfied when
the trial court informs the accused of the nature of the charges,
the right to be counseled regarding the plea, and the range of
possible sentences. The Court leaves it to states to promulgate
their own rules regarding the acceptance of an uncounseled plea,
but finds that the Iowa Supreme Court's interpretation of the US
Constitution was erroneous in this case.
Summary:
D challenged a 1996 OWI conviction, which the State was
using to enhance a pending OWI charge from a second-offense
aggravated misdemeanor to a third-offense felony. D argued that his
1996 waiver of counsel was invalid because the court had not warned
him of the disadvantages of self-representation. However, while the
Constitution provides the right to counsel, it does not force a
lawyer upon a defendant; it simply requires that any waiver of the
right to counsel be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The Court
maintained that states may develop rules, statutes, and decisions
that provide a higher level of protections for accused persons than
does the US Constitution, but Iowa was not doing so in this case.
Rather, the Iowa Supreme Court was interpreting the US Constitution
to require warnings to a pro se defendendant regarding the
usefulness of an attorney, an interpretation the Court held was
erroneous.
Presently in Wisconsin, under State v. Klessig, a
valid waiver of counsel requires the circuit court to conduct a
colloquy that ensures the defendant made a deliberate choice to
proceed without counsel, was aware of the disadvantages of
self-representation, was aware of the seriousness of the charges,
and was aware of the general range of penalties that could be
imposed. Klessig was based on Wisconsin's own rules, not
on an interpretation of the US Constitution. Because Tovar
addressed only the Iowa Supreme Court's erroneous interpretation of
the US Constitution, and allows states to promulgate their own
rules, Klessig should be unaffected.