Case Title: State v. Lewis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 89-338

                           SEPTEMBER TERM, 1990


State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit
                                  }
John W. Lewis                     }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 196-2-89Fcr


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant appeals his convictions of driving while under the influence
of intoxicating liquor and the district court's finding of refusal to submit
to a chemical test in violation of 23 V.S.A. {{ 1201(a)(2) and 1205.  We
affirm.

     Beginning at his arraignment on February 27, 1989, and continuing
thereafter, defendant repeatedly stated that he wanted to represent himself.
Defendant contends that the trial court conducted no formal inquiry to de-
termine if his decision was knowingly and intelligently made, and he now
argues that the record should show such an inquiry.

     The recognized "better practice is for the trial court first to conduct
sufficient inquiry into the defendant's experience, motives, and understand-
ing of what he is undertaking to determine the quality of his purported
waiver, and then to provide a clear explanation of the adverse consequences
of pro se representation.  This discussion should appear on the record so
that a reviewing court may determine that the defendant knowingly accepted
the risk."   State v. Merrill, No. 86-421, slip op. at 4 (Nov. 30, 1990),
(citations omitted).  It is also advisable for the court to inform a
defendant of the options available to protect his right to counsel, the
nature of the charges against him, and the possible punishment.  Id. at 5;
State v. O'Connell, 147 Vt. 60, 65,