‘Third-Strike’ Convictions Stir Concern

A jury took just 20 minutes to find Steven Douglas Mattson guilty of stealing flatware from a department store, then trying to return the knives and forks for a $161.61 refund.

Mattson, who represented himself during the three-day trial, was convicted Wednesday of felony burglary and petty theft with a prior, charges that typically carry a prison sentence of 16 months to three years.

But this was the third “strike” for Mattson, who has two previous felony convictions, and the unemployed computer worker now faces a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life.

Mattson was the second defendant this week who refused a lawyer and ended up convicted under California’s year-old “three-strikes” law. Another repeat felon, who wanted to call his parrot as a witness, got his third “strike” Wednesday on charges that he stole a dog at gunpoint.

Some legal experts question the fairness of sentencing people convicted of relatively minor felonies to such lengthy prison terms. And those concerns are compounded when defendants fail to accept legal help in cases where a guilty verdict carries such grave consequences.

Orange County judges said they routinely try to dissuade people from acting as their own lawyers.

But judges and attorneys said that defendants have a constitutional right to defend themselves and that there is no way to force people to accept counsel if they have been found mentally competent to stand trial and assist in their own defense. The practice is even allowed in death penalty cases, most notably in a Florida trial this year in which a former preacher was sentenced to die after representing himself against charges that he killed a doctor and his unarmed escort at an abortion clinic.

*

In Orange County, former janitor Jonathan D’Arcy is being allowed to represent himself in a death penalty case. He is accused of setting a bookkeeper on fire after a dispute over a $150 check.

“For better or worse, a defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to self-representation,” Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr., of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, wrote in the legal decision allowing D’Arcy to handle his own defense.

D’Arcy and other defendants who represent themselves are entitled to an attorney for advice and to a court-appointed private investigator, but they are also warned that they give up their right to claim ineffective representation on appeal.

Orange County Superior Court Judge David O. Carter said that many defendants want to represent themselves because they mistakenly believe they get perks in jail.

That was true in the case of Willie Wisely, one of the county’s most notorious jailhouse lawyers, who acquired his own eight-man double cell at Orange County Jail. His cell was equipped with a computer, lawbooks and a private telephone during the seven years he represented himself against charges that he murdered his stepfather--a case he eventually lost in 1987.

But the Wisely case was an exception. Other than some extra writing materials, Carter said, jailhouse lawyers who handle cases pro per are now treated the same as anyone else behind bars.

“They’re very foolish,” Carter said. “They are buying a fast track to a conviction. I have very rarely seen pro per success.”

This week, Mattson acted as his own defense attorney against charges that he walked into a Broadway store Oct. 20, 1994, with the intent to pull off a refund scam.

*

A store security employee reported seeing him grab flatware from a display case and said she followed Mattson as he filled out a return form, using an alias, to seek a refund, according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul McBride.

Mattson was eligible for a third “strike” because of previous convictions for armed robbery, kidnaping and burglary dating back to the 1970s.

A juror in the case said he thought the defendant might have fared better had he accepted help from a lawyer. He said Mattson really hurt himself when he took the stand in his own defense, offering a story filled with inconsistencies.

“He didn’t do a bad job, but at times he seemed overwhelmed, which I guess is only natural,” said the juror, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld. “His legal knowledge was somewhat limited.”

The juror said he was not troubled to learn after the verdict that the 48-year-old man had received his third “strike” and faces a 25-years-to-life prison sentence when he comes back before Superior Court Judge William R. Froeberg next week.

“The guy’s two previous ‘strikes’ are pretty serious,” the juror said. “It was probably only a matter of time before he struck again.”

McBride said that Mattson made a “knowing and intelligent decision” to represent himself and that the case qualified as a third “strike” under state law.

“You look at the case as a whole,” he said. “You look at this individual who has done some very violent crimes. In this case, you have clear, unmistakable criminal conduct he’s engaged in. The law is the law. We’re required to follow it.”

The dog stealing case against Ty Clayton, a 44-year-old swap meet vendor who had previous rape convictions, also ended Wednesday when a jury took 40 minutes to find him guilty of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

Clayton, who maintained his innocence, was accused of stealing a dog at gunpoint during a dispute with a Garden Grove couple over reward money for the missing pet, which he had reported finding.

Norman M. Garland, a professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles, questioned the wisdom of the “three-strikes” provision that allows the stiff sentences for such felony convictions as burglary.

“I think the movement in this country, and in Canada as well, to remove discretion from the sentencing judge is bound to create this kind of problem, where people are incarcerated for enormous periods of time for very minor offenses while others go free who have committed heinous crimes,” he said.

But even in such cases, he said, judges have no choice but to allow defendants the right to represent themselves if they want to and are deemed competent.

“Many people do things that are ill-advised,” Garland said. “The law is not set up to save people from their own stupidity.”