Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
V

UNPUBLISHED June 23, 2011

JERRY BERNARD MATTHEWS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 296889 Cass Circuit Court LC No. 09-010230-FH

Before: TALBOT, P.J., and GLEICHER and M. J. KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction of failure to pay child support, MCL 750.165, for which the trial court sentenced him as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to serve 60 months' probation, with 240 days in jail, and to pay child support and related expenses. Because we conclude that there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm. The prosecution's theory of the case was that defendant was under a court order to pay child support to his daughter's mother, and had notice of the order, but failed to make more than $16,000 in payments. Defendant began the proceedings with appointed counsel, but at the onset of trial asked to represent himself. The trial court granted the request. On appeal, defendant's sole issue is that the trial court should not have let him represent himself. This error, he maintains, warrants a new trial. This Court reviews a trial court's decision affecting a defendant's right to counsel of choice for an abuse of discretion. People v Akins, 259 Mich App 545, 556; 675 NW2d 863 (2003). This Court reviews the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision for clear error, but reviews de novo the proper interpretation or application of the constitutional standard to the facts. People v Russell, 471 Mich 182, 187; 684 NW2d 745 (2004).

-1-

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . the Assistance of counsel for his defense."1 The United States Supreme Court has held that "an element of this right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him." United States v Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 US 140, 144; 126 S Ct 2557; 165 L Ed 2d 409 (2006). And this right includes the right to represent oneself: "[A] defendant `has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.'" Russell, 471 Mich at 188, adding emphasis and quoting Faretta v California, 422 US 806, 807; 95 S Ct 2525; 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975). Indeed, courts may not lightly deny a defendant's request to represent himself, because forcing representation on an unwilling defendant is contrary to the basic right to defend oneself. See Id. at 188 n 12. Upon a defendant's initial request to proceed without the assistance of an attorney, the trial court must determine whether the request is unequivocal, and whether the defendant is asserting that right knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, by way of "a colloquy advising the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation," and must further determine whether the defendant's self-representation will disrupt, unduly inconvenience, or otherwise "burden the court and the administration of the court's business." Russell, 471 Mich at 190 (noting that the proper judicial inquest necessary to effectuate a valid waiver is that stated in People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361; 247 NW2d 857 (1976)). Under MCR 6.005(D), a trial court must also advise the defendant of the charge, the maximum sentence and any mandatory minimum sentence, along with the hazards inherent in self-representation, and to offer the defendant the opportunity to consult with retained or appointed counsel. Nevertheless, courts do not follow a "litany approach" to ascertaining whether a waiver is valid, rather the inquiry required under Anderson and MCR 6.005(D) "are merely vehicles to ensure that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived counsel with eyes open." People v Adkins (After Remand), 452 Mich 702, 725; 551 NW2d 108 (1996). Before granting a defendant's request to represent himself, trial courts must substantially comply with the requirements set forth in Anderson and MCR 6.005(D). Russell, 471 Mich at 191-192, citing Adkins, 452 Mich at 726-727. In this case, the trial court impressed upon defendant the importance of having a trained lawyer represent him at trial. The trial court further elicited repeated and unequivocal statements from defendant that he wanted to represent himself and understood the danger and disadvantages of doing so. On this record, it is clear that the trial court substantially complied with the requirements stated in Anderson and with a portion of MCR 6.005(D). Notwithstanding that, defendant complains that the trial court did not precisely follow a script, or have defendant sign a written waiver that is often used to establish compliance with MCR 6.005(D). However, trial courts are not required to follow a formalistic approach to establishing a valid waiver of counsel; rather, the inquiry is whether the trial court properly

1

See also Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V JERRY BERNARD MATTHEWS JR.pdf

Michigan Law