The court also emphasized that if defendant believed he had a legitimate defense to the probation violation, he would stop the proceedings so that defendant could obtain a lawyer. Bond was then set. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the court advised the defendant of his right to be represented by an attorney and defendant indicated that he wanted to proceed without one. Finally, reviewing the factors set forth in Kitley, supra, it is clear that defendant's waiver was knowing. The Sentence Information Report completed for the underlying felony indicates that defendant's prior record level was Level D, the highest.
Defendant has a criminal history and a high level of familiarity with the criminal justice system.
He was twenty-two years old at the time. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to indicate that defendant was in any way pressured to admit the charge against him without the assistance of counsel. Indeed, on two separate occasions, the court double checked with defendant to make sure he wanted to proceed without counsel. Accordingly, defendant's right to counsel was not violated by the trial court. Lane involved a trial court's failure to advise a defendant of the right to counsel prior to a subsequent trial on an habitual offender charge and prior to the sentencing.