Opinion ID: 901120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to proceed pro se.

Text: [¶ 26.] During the pre-trial hearing on the morning of the trial, Talarico stated, you can either give me a week's continuance and subpoena my witness and I'll represent myself or send me back to my cell. Talarico claims that he unequivocally requested to represent himself. [¶ 27.] Although a defendant has a constitutional right to represent himself, his request must be clear and unequivocal. Irvine, 1996 SD 43, ¶ 18, 547 N.W.2d at 182; State v. Chamley, 1997 SD 107, ¶ 35, 568 N.W.2d 607, 618. Talarico gave the court an ultimatum. Either the court grant his continuance, so he could represent himself, or he wished to return to his cell. At this point the trial court denied his request for continuance. Talarico did not ask again to represent himself. In fact, at the same hearing Talarico said and without my witnesses I don't stand a chance, ... and without proper representation I don't stand a chance, so why should I sit here for you.... In addition, the trial court sent the Deputy Sheriff to clarify this issue of proceeding pro se. Talarico told the Deputy that he did not wish to represent himself, as he was not qualified, he needs an attorney. A court must `indulge in every reasonable presumption against [a defendant's] waiver' of his right to counsel and require the defendant to make a knowing, intelligent, voluntary, and unequivocal request before concluding that he has waived his right to counsel and invoked his right to represent himself. Irvine, 1996 SD 43, ¶ 18, 547 N.W.2d at 182 (citing Hamilton v. Groose, 28 F.3d 859, 861-62 (8th Cir.1994)). We cannot say that the trial court erred in denying the defendant his right to proceed pro se.