Background
Angel Nieto, a parolee, was arrested on an outstanding warrant and charged with two counts of escape after he fled a patrol car during a brief stop at his mother’s house. At trial, Nieto appeared and participated in jury selection on the first day. During the lunch break, while handcuffed in a holding cell, he attempted suicide by tying his necktie around his neck. Deputies intervened. He was hospitalized, medically and psychologically cleared, and returned to jail without any mental health hold.
The following morning, Nieto refused to appear in court. Via WebEx, he told the judge he was suicidal, had not received his psychiatric medications for five days, questioned his competency, and demanded to fire his attorney. The trial court found he had voluntarily absented himself, proceeded with trial in his absence, and denied his request to represent himself pro se. The jury convicted him on both counts.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Nieto voluntarily waived his constitutional right to be present at trial. Although Nieto claimed mental health crisis and medication deprivation, the record supported the trial court’s finding that he deliberately created the medical necessity for his absence. Deputies testified Nieto appeared to stage the suicide attempt and responded to pain stimulus; he was cleared by medical professionals without a mental health hold; and no record evidence showed he was actually denied medications. Critically, Nieto understood the trial was proceeding and knew of his right to attend.
On the pro se claim, the court held the trial court properly denied his request to fire counsel. Although Nieto clearly and repeatedly expressed desire to represent himself, the record showed he never demonstrated understanding of the serious consequences of self-representation. When the judge explained those consequences twice, Nieto gave only nonresponsive answers and invoked the Fifth Amendment. A valid waiver of the right to counsel requires voluntary, knowing, and intelligent relinquishment—none of which was shown here.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may voluntarily waive the right to be present at trial through conduct—including by deliberately creating circumstances (such as attempted suicide) that make attendance impossible—if the defendant knew the trial was occurring and acted with knowledge of that fact.
- A defendant’s subjective claims of mental health crisis or medication deprivation do not require a mistrial if the record shows no objective evidence supporting those claims and the defendant received medical clearance.
- A defendant cannot validly waive the right to counsel without demonstrating clear understanding of the consequences; nonresponsive or evasive replies to judicial warnings are insufficient, and courts must “indulge every reasonable presumption against finding a waiver.”
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that trial courts have discretion to proceed without a defendant when that defendant deliberately absents himself after trial has begun, even when mental health claims are asserted. However, the court’s approach to Nieto’s competency and medication claims reveals a potential gap: the opinion does not discuss whether the trial court should have ordered a competency evaluation or investigated the medication claim more thoroughly before finding the absence “voluntary.” Trial practitioners should note that while defendants cannot use self-sabotage to indefinitely delay proceedings, courts reviewing such cases will scrutinize whether the record genuinely refutes mental health claims or merely reflects credibility judgments by lay deputies.
The pro se ruling also matters for defense counsel strategy: under Colorado law, trial courts must carefully administer warnings about self-representation consequences and cannot accept evasive or Fifth Amendment invocations as a knowing and intelligent waiver, even when a defendant clearly wants to fire counsel.