Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of counsel and right to proceed pro se

Text: ¶ 57. While Goff presents the issue as whether the trial court erred when it allowed him to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and proceed pro se, we find that the actual issue is whether the hybrid representation Goff received during trial provided him with effective assistance of counsel. See Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558, 564 (Miss.1993); see also United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir.2001). ¶ 58. A trial court may permit hybrid representation which consists of the participation by an attorney in the conduct of the trial when the defendant is proceeding pro se. Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 562-63 (citations omitted); see also Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26 (1890) (In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself or counsel, or both....). This Court has set forth various factors to consider in determining whether the trial court granted pro se or hybrid representation: [T]he defendant's accessibility to counsel; whether and how often he consults with counsel up to the point of the request; the stage of trial at which he requests a participatory role in his defense; the magnitude of the role he desires to assume; whether the trial court encourages immediate and constant accessibility of counsel; and the nature and extent of assistance of counsel which has been provided up to the point of the request, including both substantive and procedural aid. Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 565. ¶ 59. Considering these factors individually, we find that this case is analogous to other cases in which this Court has held that the defendant was not deprived of counsel due to hybrid representation. Deen and McNally, Goff's privately retained attorneys, were present at Goff's counsel table during the entire trial, and Goff consulted with them on several occasions. See Dunn v. State, 693 So.2d 1333, 1342 (Miss.1997); Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 565. Both Deen and McNally provided substantial assistance before trial. See Dunn, 693 So.2d at 1342. They filed numerous pretrial motions and represented Goff at two pretrial hearings. After Goff filed a motion to proceed pro se, which the trial court granted, the trial judge stated: [U]nder these circumstances and given the nature of the charges here, I am appointing Mr. Deen and Mr. McNally and directing that they remain to provide you with any support, assistance, and advice that you deem sufficient to seek from them. And also, I will authorize them to act as co-counsel, if that is acceptable to you. ¶ 60. It is clear from the record that Deen and McNally were not casual observers. Deen conducted voir dire; handled jury challenges; made numerous objections throughout the trial; conducted the cross-examination of Margaret Clark, Trooper Ginn, James Yates, Jr., Dr. Hayne, Investigator Smith, Investigator Bowlus, and Detective Lambert; conducted the direct examination of Dee Dee Wall, Detective Lambert, and Rachel Manders; [21] made the motion for directed verdict; presented the closing argument in the guilt phase; represented Goff at sentencing; made the opening statement on behalf of Goff at sentencing; conducted the direct examination of Lessie Goff and Dr. Van Rosen at sentencing; and filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. ¶ 61. McNally participated in the approval of jury instructions and otherwise assisted both Deen and Goff throughout the trial. As already noted, Deen and McNally filed numerous pretrial motions as well. ¶ 62. In contrast to the involvement of Deen and McNally, Goff had a limited role throughout the course of the trial. Goff made miscellaneous objections, but his only direct involvement was conducting the cross-examinations of Pearl Boulware and Sheriff Welford, and making a closing argument, along with Deen, at the guilt phase. ¶ 63. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that Goff never was actually without counsel. Deen and McNally were available throughout the entire trial and substantially participated. The role of each was not merely that of a skilled bystander, but of a substantive litigator. Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 565. Goff, having never been fully without the assistance of counsel, cannot now complain. He received the best of both worlds  the assistance of counsel while conducting his own defense. Id.; Dunn, 693 So.2d at 1342-43, Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 565.