Narrative Opinion Summary
Eva Verner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed as a nullity because she is currently represented by counsel. The court noted that a public defender was appointed to Verner on May 25, 2005, and an attorney's notice of appearance was filed on June 10, 2005. Verner's claim that the trial court allowed her to represent herself was not supported by the record. Consequently, her pro se petition submitted on June 21, 2005, is legally invalid. The dismissal is supported by precedent from Salser v. State. The decision was concurred by PLEUS, C.J. and SHARP, W. J.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appointment of Public Defendersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case reaffirms that once a public defender is appointed and an attorney has filed a notice of appearance, the defendant is considered to be represented by counsel, invalidating any pro se filings.
Reasoning: The court noted that a public defender was appointed to Verner on May 25, 2005, and an attorney's notice of appearance was filed on June 10, 2005.
Precedent for Dismissal of Pro Se Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dismissal of Eva Verner's pro se petition is consistent with precedent, as exemplified by the case Salser v. State.
Reasoning: The dismissal is supported by precedent from Salser v. State.
Representation by Counsel and Pro Se Filingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus is considered a nullity when the petitioner is represented by counsel, as demonstrated by the dismissal of Eva Verner's petition.
Reasoning: Eva Verner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed as a nullity because she is currently represented by counsel.
Validity of Claims for Self-Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no evidence in the record to support the claim that the trial court allowed Eva Verner to represent herself, rendering her pro se petition invalid.
Reasoning: Verner's claim that the trial court allowed her to represent herself was not supported by the record.