Opinion ID: 2051677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of Proceedings Before Defendant's Waiver of Counsel

Text: [I]n circumstances raising legitimate doubts about a defendant's mental condition [at a probation-revocation hearing], State v. Chabot, 682 A.2d 1377, 1380 (R.I.1996), [w]e previously have determined that a defendant is subjected to a heightened standard of competency when he attempts to waive counsel and appear pro se.  State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 994, 995 (R.I.2002) (holding that, notwithstanding applicant's disclosure during plea colloquy that he was off his medication, applicant for post-conviction relief was mentally competent when he pled nolo contendere to various charges, noting that the applicant was at all times represented by counsel and that not a scintilla of evidence indicated that he was laboring under a mental disability during the plea hearing). In this case, defendant's second claim of error is that the trial justice erred in failing to inquire sufficiently about his psychiatric condition before deciding that defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. The defendant contends that the trial justice failed to inquire about defendant's competency to waive counsel as required by Chabot. Instead of engaging in such an inquiry, defendant argues, the trial court's examination was confined to a single question asking defendant whether he believed himself capable to represent himself despite his mental illness. The defendant also maintains that the trial justice erred in failing to determine whether his waiver of counsel was voluntary because he was not made aware of the potential sentence that the court could impose upon him for the charge he was facing in accordance with Chabot. Before trial began, defendant expressed his desire to discharge his court-appointed counsel and to proceed to trial pro se. As a result of defendant's request, the following colloquy took place between the court and defendant: The Court: I have been informed at a pretrial conference in anticipation [of] beginning this case today that Mr. Holdsworth wishes to discharge the services of Mr. Levy and proceed pro se, is that correct, Mr. Holdsworth? The Defendant: He is going to act as a standby. He is going to act as a standby lawyer because I'm going to need some kind of legal presence, but I'm pretty much going to act as my attorney. The Court: In order to do that officially, you have to listen to the question. The question is if you wish to discharge Mr. Levy as your attorney; is that correct? The Defendant: Yes. The Court: Do you feel you're capable of conducting your own defense in this matter? The Defendant: Yes. The Court: And we heard some brief testimony yesterday in pretrial motions that you are a recipient and have been from time to time a patient at the Providence Mental Health Center; is that correct? The Defendant: That is correct, yes, sir. The Court: All right. Now, to me, that would indicate the diagnosis by some competent official of some degree of mental disability. Having said that and making that assumption, do you feel that you are competent to represent yourself in this case? The Defendant: Yes. The Court: Do you understand that in order to do this, you will be given no consideration by this Court with regard to your perceived lack of Rules of Evidence or practice and procedure? The Defendant: I have no problem with that. The Court: You will be held to the same standard as Mr. Dawson in this case even though he has had the benefit of legal training. Do you understand that? The Defendant: Good sense is good law. The Court: The Sixth Amendment gives you the right to represent yourself in this case if the Court believes you are qualified and capable to do so. Are you requesting that Mr. Levy be allowed to be your standby counsel in this case? The Defendant: Yes, I am going to need some kind of standby, somebody to, you know, hold my hand. The Court: Well, you understand he will not be speaking on your behalf in this capacity but will be available to you for discussion on legal strategy and practice and procedure. Do you understand that? The Defendant: That's fine. The Court: He will not be allowed to question people and he will not offer objections on your behalf. Do you understand that? The Defendant: That's fine. The Court: He will also not be able to cross-examine or examine witnesses or make argument on your behalf. The Defendant: I have no problem with that   .