United States v. Kelley, No. 14-1249 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseA grand jury indicted Kelley on two counts of arson. Before trial, Kelley moved to have his court appointed attorney replaced. The magistrate judge denied Kelley’s motion. On the morning Kelley’s trial was to begin, Kelley moved for substitute counsel or, alternatively, to proceed pro se. The district court denied the motion. At trial, a jury found Kelley guilty on both counts. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of substitute counsel, based on its finding that the public defender was not doing anything other than acting in [Kelley’s] best interests and that Kelley’s specific complaints did not rise to the level of “[j]ustifiable dissatisfaction.” The court remanded for clarification as to Kelley’s request to proceed pro se. The court denied that request without any explicit discussion, perhaps due to the unusual circumstance of a courtroom observer shouting a question during ex parte proceedings, which resulted in a recess. It was not clear whether the district court found Kelley’s request to be unclear and equivocal, in the first instance; found the request untimely or obstructionist; or found Kelley could not produce a valid waiver of his right to counsel.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant did not contest the magistrate judge's denial of his motion for substitute counsel by filing an objection with the district court and he waived the issue for appeal; even if the court were to excuse defendant's waiver and review the decision, his complaints about his appointed counsel did not rise to the level of justifiable dissatisfaction, and the magistrate judge did not err in denying the motion; the district court did not err in denying defendant's day-of-trial motion for substitution of counsel; with respect to defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying his request to proceed pro se, it is not clear whether the district court found the request unclear and equivocal or untimely or obstructionist or if the court found defendant could not produce a valid waiver of his right to counsel, and the matter is remanded to permit the district court to clarify its ruling.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 29, 2015.
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.