State v. LipskiAnnotate this Case
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating a vehicle when the registration of that vehicle was suspended, holding that the State was not required to provide counsel to Defendant.
Defendant was tried before a jury without counsel. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial court entered a judgment after imposing a fine supplemented by surcharges. Defendant appealed, arguing that he had a right to court-appointed counsel because of his inability or unwillingness to pay a fine and that jury selection proceedings were deficient. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant was not at risk of incarceration as part of the sentence the State was not required to provide counsel; and (2) there was no basis for a claim of legal error or abuse of discretion regarding jury proceedings.