Opinion ID: 164556
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Right to Proceed Pro Se

Text: Mr. Gagan also claims that he was denied his right to proceed pro se. The district court declined to rule on Mr. Gagan’s pro se motions “until [Mr. Gagan’s] competence to stand trial ha[d] been established and issues relating to 9 his continued representation by counsel ha[d] been resolved.” Rec. doc. 103 (Order, filed June 30, 2003). “Criminal defendants have a constitutional right, rooted in the Sixth Amendment, to conduct their own defense. Thus, a lawyer cannot be forced upon a defendant who wishes to act as his own representative, even if self-representation would be detrimental to the defendant.” Boigegrain, 155 F.3d at 1185 (citations omitted). However, “the degree of competence necessary to waive the right to counsel is identical to the degree of competence necessary to stand trial. Therefore, it [is] impossible for the district court to allow the defendant to waive counsel before determining whether he was competent to stand trial.” Id. (citations omitted) (citing Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 399400 (1993)). Here, Mr. Gagan filed his pro se motions when he was represented by counsel and before a determination of competency by the district court. In these circumstances, the district court did not violate Mr. Gagan’s right to proceed pro se.