Opinion ID: 1464772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Inform of Right to Hybrid Counsel

Text: Appellant next argues that the trial court committed error by failing to inform him of his right to hybrid counsel under Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution. See Hill v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 221, 228-29 (Ky.2004) (recognizing the right to hybrid counsel under Ky. Const. § 11). Appellant's claim is not that he was denied his right to hybrid counsel. Indeed, Appellant never requested hybrid counsel, and thus was not entitled to it. Deno v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Ky.2005) ([H]ybrid representation may only be granted to a defendant who makes a timely and unequivocal request for such representation. (citing Moore v. Commonwealth, 634 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Ky. 1982))). Rather, his argument is that, when the trial court asked him why he wanted to make a complete waiver of his right to counsel and proceed pro se, he was entitled to be informed that he could make a limited waiver and proceed with hybrid counsel instead. To date, there is no case which requires a trial court to sua sponte inform a defendant of his right to hybrid counsel. If error, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the verdict in this case.