Opinion ID: 1295875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Delgado's Request to Proceed Pro Se During Trial

Text: Delgado argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred in allowing him to proceed with his trial pro se. Delgado claims that the trial court did not offer enough warnings regarding the consequences of his decision to proceed pro se and did not sufficiently ensure that he understood the consequences of his decision. Delgado acknowledges that specific, verbatim warnings of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation are not required, but claims that the advice and warnings offered by the trial court were woefully insufficient to render Delgado's waiver of counsel voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. [3-5] Under U.S. Const. Amend. VI and Neb. Const. art. I, § 11, a criminal defendant has the right to waive the assistance of counsel and conduct his or her own defense. State v. Sack, 239 Neb. 690, 477 N.W.2d 921 (1991). In order to waive the constitutional right to counsel, the waiver must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); State v. Dunster, 262 Neb. 329, 631 N.W.2d 879 (2001). However, this court has held, as have other courts, that Faretta does not require that formal warnings be given by the trial court to establish a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. See, Ferguson v. Bruton, 217 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that specific warning of dangers and disadvantages of self-representation is not required in every case if record shows that defendant had such knowledge from other sources); State v. Dunster, supra . Delgado asserts that in determining whether his waiver was given knowingly and intelligently, we should apply the four-part [f]ederal test used by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Egwaoje, 335 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2003). Brief for appellant at 18. However, the court stated that the four-part inquiry is not a formalistic, mechanical approach. U.S. v. Egwaoje, supra . Rather, the court's ultimate inquiry is whether the record supports a knowing and intelligent waiver, regardless of the consideration of the four factors. Id. If it does, the trial court's decision will be upheld. Id. We also have rejected the claim that a formalistic litany is required to show such a waiver was knowingly and intelligently made. State v. Green, supra . Thus, we reject Delgado's argument that we adhere to a strict four-part analysis and instead review the record to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, Delgado was sufficiently aware of his right to counsel and the possible consequences of his decision to forgo the aid of counsel. See State v. Dunster, supra . In determining whether Delgado's waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made, the cases of State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492, 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991), and State v. Dunster, supra , are instructive. In Green, we found that the defendant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. In reaching that conclusion, we noted that a knowing and intelligent waiver can be inferred from a defendant's conduct and that such a waiver could be made despite the trial court's failure to advise the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. We also emphasized that a defendant's decision to represent himself need not be prudent, just knowing and intelligent. In Green, we also took note of the defendant's prior experience with the judicial system, in particular his prior self-representation during a criminal trial. Similarly, in State v. Dunster, supra , we found that the defendant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. In that case, the defendant was aware of his right to legal representation, had discussed self-representation with two attorneys, was advised of the complexities of evidentiary objections and the preservation of those objections, and was informed he would be held to the same standard as a defendant represented by counsel. In addition, the defendant was advised by the trial court that it believed the defendant was making a mistake by electing to proceed pro se. We conclude, upon a review of the record, that Delgado likewise knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The record reflects, as recited above, that Delgado was well aware of his right to legal counsel and of the possible sentences he faced for the various charges against him. The record also reflects that Delgado was advised of his rights surrounding his trial and of the complexities of representing himself, including knowledge of the technical Nebraska rules of evidence. Moreover, Delgado was hardly a novice at dealing with the criminal justice system. The trial court appointed Delgado's trial counsel as standby counsel to assist Delgado if he needed help and to resume representation of Delgado if he later chose to relinquish his right to self-representation.