Convicted offender to get fifth lawyer

 
LOADING
Oct 18, 2007 - 05:34:46 CDT
A man convicted in December of gross sexual imposition will get his fifth appointed attorney to represent him in the case.

Tilmer Everett, 36, was charged with the Class AA felony in May 2006 after an 18-year-old Bismarck woman told police Everett had raped her.

At a court hearing Wednesday morning, Dickinson attorney Jay Greenwood moved to withdraw as counsel for Everett. South Central District Judge Tom Schneider allowed Greenwood to withdraw. Everett had not been transferred from the state penitentiary to the Burleigh County Courthouse for the hearing, but Schneider granted the withdrawal anyway, saying Everett had written a letter to the court requesting a new attorney to handle his post-conviction relief proceedings.

Burleigh County Assistant State's Attorney Brandi Sasse Russell explained that post-conviction relief motions are attempts by defendants to prove that something was done wrong during the trial to the point that the case should be thrown out. She said Everett's hearing had been scheduled for Friday but will now be rescheduled when a new attorney is appointed.

Russell handled the Wednesday hearing for Assistant State's Attorney Cynthia Feland, who was out of the office. Feland has been the prosecutor on the case since Everett was charged.

Schneider said on Wednesday that he would appoint one last attorney for Everett. He said it will be Everett's last chance to have an appointed attorney.

"We're running out of attorneys," he said.

The new attorney will be the fifth to handle Everett's case. Two Bismarck attorneys were allowed to withdraw from the case before Greenwood was appointed, and a Mandan attorney is handling a possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

Bismarck attorney Susan Schmidt was appointed to represent Everett after he was charged. She filed a motion in August 2006 asking that she be removed from the case, and South Central District Judge Bruce Romanick removed her.

In the motion, Schmidt said Everett had yelled and cursed at her, refused to work with a private investigator and wanted her to subpoena witnesses without giving her any reasons why they should be subpoenaed.

Bismarck attorney Todd Schwarz was appointed to represent Everett following Schmidt's withdrawal. Schwarz filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in October 2006, citing similar reasons as Schmidt. He stayed on the case but filed another motion to withdraw in November 2006, because Everett wanted to represent himself.

Schwarz remained on the case as "stand-by" counsel during Everett's three-day trial.

Everett represented himself during his sentencing in March. He maintained his innocence throughout court proceedings, saying he had consensual sex with the 18-year-old woman. He accused police, prosecutors and Romanick of working against him while making several profanity-laced statements during the 30-minute sentencing.

Romanick sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Romanick was activated by the Army Reserve on June 4 and expects to be on active duty with the 87th Legal Services Organization for one year. Schneider was assigned to take over the case for Romanick.

Everett filed a notice of appeal with the North Dakota Supreme Court about a week after he was sentenced, and Mandan attorney Ben Pulkrabek was appointed to represent him on appeal.

Everett filed a motion for post-conviction relief in June. Greenwood said during Wednesday's hearing he believed he had been appointed out of Dickinson to handle those proceedings because two appointed attorneys out of Bismarck had already had conflicts working with Everett. He said his reasons for asking to be taken off the case appeared similar to Schmidt's and Schwarz's reasons.

Greenwood said Everett would not respond to anything he didn't agree with while they worked on the case.

"It's not so much a matter of not getting along," he said, noting that he could have conversations with Everett without a problem.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@;bismarcktribune.com.)

   Printer friendly version
Convicted offender to get fifth lawyer
Comments

kansas girl wrote on Oct 18, 2007 7:17 PM:

" Just because Grumpy old Republican calls himself that has nothing to do with his writing. Dont put all Republicans in the same hat with him. We are not all bitter and nasty as this man. He has bigger issue's then Republican or Liberal , "

strict constructionalist wrote on Oct 18, 2007 5:51 PM:

" the founding fathers of this country would never have contemplated this situation. this convict is being waited-on hand over fist. enough is enough! i'm dissappointed Judge Schneider. "

just thinking wrote on Oct 18, 2007 5:33 PM:

" to wow. just wow. this 36 year old man has been to court and found guilty of raping an 18 year old woman and sentenced by a judge. where are you getting your conclusions? and to ''sick of sex offenders", i'm with you with being sick of them but you do know there are lots of female sex offenders too, right? "

Family Values? wrote on Oct 18, 2007 4:16 PM:

" To: PO3toFamilyValues wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:54 PM . . . .Be Careful! The guy in the next toilet stall may be a Republican. :-) "

PO3toFamilyValues wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:54 PM:

" Soon Hillary will be in power and she will do what you on the left want, stop free speech. Fairness Doctrine will get you want you want, no one who disagree's with you will be allowed to speak. Hillary is a big supporter of stopping free speech, and fairness doctrine should accomplish that, but she's gotta win in 08 first and I think she will. Your gonna love her. "

SICK OF SEX CRIME OFFENDERS wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:44 PM:

" I AM SO SICK OF THESE SEX CRIME OFFENDERS, IF THEY DO THE CRIME JUST LET THEM ROT IN PRISON. SICK, SICK, SICK OF IT. However, I am really proud of any men that are speaking out against these child offenders. Lets keep that going ok?? "

wow. just wow. wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:18 PM:

" i had no idea you people had such contempt for the system. i guess if y'all had your way the police would be judge, jury and executioner. "

just thinking wrote on Oct 18, 2007 1:40 PM:

" well you know they're all innocent out there in the big house. if you dont believe it, just ask any one of them. "

C3PO wrote on Oct 18, 2007 1:29 PM:

" This is a waste of taxpayer money. Everett should not be able to play the system like this - if he had to pay - he wouldn't be able to. There has to be a limit - after two lawyers - the defendant should pay all court costs and attorney fees. I don't want my taxes paying for this. I'm glad I won't be on the jury cause he is guilty as charged. "

Yeh! wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:35 PM:

" I agree with ND Native and Grumpy Old Republican. Who is running the show here. I know who this guy is and even his own community were beware of him. "

xit wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:03 PM:

" punk you did the crime do the time "

Family Values? wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:29 AM:

" To: PO3 wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:01 AM . . . .Grow up and quit attacking people who blog on articles on this website. Keep your Republican lies and rhetoric to yourself - no one wants to hear your endless blasphemy. "

ND Conservative wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:07 AM:

" Everyone gets a defense, but the indigent clients should not be allowed to pick and choose their lawyer. If they want to do that--they may hire their own counsel or represent themselves. The State should be responsible for getting them one (1) public defender--that is the cost of having a free society, where everyone, not just the "scumbags"--which is an archaic term for a used prophylactic, by the way, and doesn't add a whole lot to the level of discourse--gets to have a lawyer to represent them against the State. It all goes back to the institutional distrust of government that the Founding Fathers incorporated into the Constitution. The public defenders are not just trying to "get a crook of on a technicality", they are representing that time-honored principle of protecting a citizen against governmental power. The going rate for criminal defense counsel in Bismarck is between $175.00 to $225.00 per hour, charged against a retainer fee of many thousands of dollars. Public Defenders are paid between $25.00 to $32.00 per hour if they work directly for the agency or at a contract rate that is set at $65.00 per hour for independent contractors. There is a new system at work, and it is working to deliver effective legal services to the poor at a reduced cost to the State. The problem is the revolving door of attorney withdrawal. If the judges do not allow withdrawal, which is their call, the attorney continues on with his ethical considerations--and behind--covered. The lawyers should tough it out, the judges should stop granting thin motions for withdrawals, and the Defendants' need to stop playing games with the complaint process. "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:43 AM:

" PO3, did someone whiz in your Wheaties this morning? The shots at uberleftists and the ACLU are justified, but leave the Trib Editor out of it. Take a chill pill and attempt some civility, mmmmkay? "

Online Editor wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:16 AM:

" To PO3: I didn't see anything wrong with your comment, but stopping taking shots at me and the others reading comments. It is completely uncalled for. If you have problems with me, call or email me. "

ND Native wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:14 AM:

" I agree with 'Grumpy Old Republican' - this whole 'coddle the criminal' mentality is ridiculous. "

PO3 wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:01 AM:

" This guy should be a national poster boy for the ACLU and the far left in this country of who has been wrongly sentenced for a crime they didn't commit. Hey liberals here's a cause ready made for you guys. Get out there in the streets with your signs denouncing this sentence, and the people who presided over it. Come on now don't disappoint us on this, innocent men are worth fighting for. To the liberal online editor is this to truthful for you to post? Will be interesting to see how you view this post. Editor if it will make you feel any better next time I'll be critical of repubs and right wingers. "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Oct 18, 2007 8:00 AM:

" What a total waste of taxpayer money. Why on earth should WE the taxpayers continue to fund this scumbag's fight to get out of punishment for what he has done? Did the poor gal who got raped get to go through 5 prosecutors? What did she get out of the taxpayers compared to what this piece of trash is milking the system for? Enough is enough! Stop giving sickos and criminals more rights than victims!! "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY