Case ID: f-appx_163/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mikhael Charles DORISE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-41472.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 17, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Charles A Palmer, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before JONES, Chief Judge, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mikhael Charles Dorise was charged with bank robbery, use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Dorise waived his right to counsel and proceeded to trial pro se. A jury convicted Dorise on all three counts. Dorise was sentenced to 411 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, $199 in restitution, and a $300 special assessment. Represented by appointed counsel, Dorise now appeals.

Dorise’s sole issue on appeal is whether he was competent to waive his right to counsel. At the hearing on Dorise’s motion for self-representation, Dorise responded appropriately and coherently to all of the magistrate judge’s questions. The record reflects that Dorise had a good understanding of the proceedings against him. The magistrate judge did not err in finding that Dorise knowingly and willingly waived his right to counsel. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Dunn v. Johnson, 162 F.3d 302, 307-08 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.