State v. van Aelstyn

¶ 1. Defendant challenges his convictions on two counts of extortion and one count of stalking following a jury trial. Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the district court failed to determine whether defendant intended to waive his right to counsel before the case went to trial, and (2) a post-conviction amendment to the stalking statute should be applied retroactively. We affirm.

¶2. Defendant, a licensed Vermont attorney who moved to California, had difficulty retaining counsel to represent him after his arraignment in February 2004 on two counts of extortion,…