A Douglas County judge violated the rules of criminal procedure and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel when she allowed a defense attorney to withdraw, did not seek input from the defendant and did not evaluate the necessity of the withdrawal, Colorado’s second-highest court ruled on Thursday.

Shari Leigh Dooley ended up representing herself at trial, where jurors convicted her of a felony for stalking and for violating a restraining order. Weeks before trial, her hired defense attorney moved to withdraw. Although the procedural rules require a notice of withdrawal to inform a defendant of her right to object and that a hearing will be held, those elements were absent in Dooley’s case.

Moreover, trial judges “shall balance” the reasons for withdrawal with the needs of justice. Instead, then-District Court Judge Patricia Herron did not hold a hearing and granted the motion outright. Dooley was left without representation and told jurors she was “here today defending myself” because “I can’t afford another attorney.”

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals reversed Dooley’s convictions, finding the withdrawal of her attorney “violated several provisions” of the procedural rules and Dooley’s constitutional right to counsel.

“Neither counsel’s written motion nor anything said by counsel or the trial court in Dooley’s presence informed her that she had the right to object to the motion to withdraw. Nor was Dooley informed that a hearing would be held,” wrote Judge Neeti V. Pawar in the April 18 opinion. “Instead, the court simply granted the motion without soliciting input from Dooley or explaining anything to her.”

In late May 2021, Dooley’s attorney, Richard A. Schwartz, filed a three-sentence motion to withdraw from the case because of an “irremediable breakdown in the attorney client relationship.” Previously, he called Dooley an “unruly client” and said he was “between a rock and a hard place.”

At a court appearance the following month, Herron granted the motion without elaboration. District Court Judge Theresa Slade, the regular judge assigned to the case, followed up with a written order stamping Schwartz’s motion as “granted.”

Shortly before trial, Slade noted Dooley had applied for public defender representation, but “you have too much of an income.” Slade asked if Dooley had hired another private attorney.

“No, ma’am. I cannot afford it,” Dooley responded. “I guess I’m representing myself.”

After her conviction, Dooley appealed on several grounds — with a focus on the faulty process that allowed for her lawyer to exit the case with minimal scrutiny.

“Trial courts have an affirmative duty to safeguard a defendant’s right to counsel because without an attorney, a defendant may not even know their rights, let alone how to enforce them,” public defender Leah Scaduto told the appellate panel at oral arguments this month. “Without counsel, even the innocent can look guilty.”

She elaborated it is not “common knowledge” that a judge needs to approve a lawyer’s withdrawal, and it is not as simple as an attorney “firing” a client.

The government acknowledged the withdrawal motion was non-compliant and Herron neglected to talk Dooley through the process.

But Dooley “had an opportunity to say something if she wanted to say something. She never expressed any hesitation speaking up in court in any other hearing,” maintained Senior Assistant Attorney General Jacob R. Lofgren.

Pawar, writing for the panel, declined to hold Dooley’s silence against her, given that no one informed her she had the right to object. Although Schwartz cited a breakdown in his relationship with his client, Pawar faulted the trial judge for failing to explore the facts to determine if withdrawal was merited.

“In sum, granting the motion to withdraw without explanation, inquiry, or notice to Dooley of her right to object or obligations if the motion were granted violated several provisions” of the procedural rules, she wrote, and “Dooley’s constitutional right to counsel of choice.”

The case is People v. Dooley.