Robert Todd Coleman v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-KA-01687-COA
ROBERT TODD COLEMAN
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
7/20/2004
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JEFFREY J. HOSFORD
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF COUNT II, ARMED ROBBERY,
COUNT III, KIDNAPPING, COUNT IV,
KIDNAPPING, AND COUNT V, BURGLARY OF
A DWELLING, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A
TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FOR COUNT
II IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC AND TWENTY
YEARS FOR EACH OF THE COUNTS III, IV,
AND V, WITH ALL OF THE SENTENCES TO
RUN CONCURRENTLY.
REVERSED AND REMANDED-11/22/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., CHANDLER AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Robert Todd Coleman was convicted in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi for armed
robbery, two counts of kidnapping, and burglary. He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for armed robbery, twenty years for each count of
kidnapping, and twenty years for burglary. All of the sentences were to run concurrently. Coleman now
appeals this judgment asserting that the trial court violated his right to self-representation.
FACTS
¶2.
On October 14, 2002, Coleman was indicted by a Clay County grand jury for two counts of
armed robbery, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of burglary. Coleman filed an affidavit of
indigency and requested that the court appointed counsel to represent him. Jeffrey Hosford, the public
defender for Clay County, was appointed by the court to defend Coleman. Hosford petitioned the court
for a psychiatric examination to determine Coleman’s mental capacity. The examination found Coleman
to be operating in the range of low to borderline intellectual function. However, the examination also
revealed that Coleman had the capacity to understand right and wrong, as well as the capacity to assert
or waive his constitutional rights.
¶3.
Just before voir dire began, Coleman’s attorney announced to the court that Coleman wanted to
dismiss his attorney and represent himself. The court warned Coleman that, due to his lack of
understanding of the law and trial procedure, his chances were much worse without an attorney. The court
further advised Coleman to retain his court-appointed attorney. Unpersuaded, Coleman confirmed that
he wished to dismiss his attorney and represent himself. The court refused to remove Hosford as
Coleman’s court-appointed counsel, citing Coleman’s ninth grade education, lack of knowledge about the
legal system, and the seriousness of the charges. After a trial, Coleman was acquitted on the first count of
armed robbery, but was convicted on all other counts.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
¶4.
Under the Mississippi and United States constitutions, a defendant has the right to waive the
assistance of counsel and represent himself. Armstead v. State, 716 So. 2d 576, 580 (¶19) (Miss. 1998);
2
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975). In Armstead, the court lists two exceptions to this rule,
namely: (1) where the defendant is so unable or unwilling to abide by rules and courtroom procedure that
his representation of himself would result in disruption of the trial; and (2) where the defendant is so
physically or mentally incompetent to speak to the jury that his right to a fair trial is endangered. Armstead,
716 So. 2d at 582 (¶25). The denial of the right to self-representation is not "amenable to 'harmless error'
analysis." Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 702 (Miss.1997) (quoting McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S.
168, 177 n.8 (1984), reh'g denied, 465 U.S. 168 (1984)). “A refusal to allow a defendant to represent
himself is a violation of his constitutional rights and requires reversal.” Taylor v. State, 812 So. 2d 1056,
1059 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (citing Gray v. State, 351 So. 2d 1342, 1345 (Miss.1977)).
¶5.
With this appeal, both Coleman and the State argue that the trial court erred in denying Coleman
his right to represent himself. The State asserts that the trial court failed to apply either of the two
established exceptions from Armstead when it denied Coleman his right to self-representation. The record
shows that the court found Coleman to be competent, but refused to remove Hosford as Coleman’s courtappointed counsel based on Coleman’s ninth grade education, his lack of knowledge about the legal
system, and the seriousness of the charges. In Faretta, the court emphasized that the defendant’s lack of
technical legal knowledge is irrelevant when determining whether he is competent to waive his right to
counsel. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 836. The court further made it clear that a defendant’s choice “must be
honored,” even if self-representation may be “ultimately to his own detriment.” Id. at 834. The record
shows that Coleman was competent to assert or waive his constitutional rights, and that he made an
unequivocal request to represent himself. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred when it denied
Coleman his right to self-representation. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new
trial consistent with this holding.
3
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY OF CONVICTION
OF COUNT II OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS;
COUNT III OF KIDNAPPING AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS; COUNT IV OF
KIDNAPPING AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS; AND COUNT V OF BURGLARY
AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO SENTENCES IN
COUNTS II, III, AND IV, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAY COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE P.J., BRIDGES, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS AND BARNES,
JJ., CONCUR. MYERS, P.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
