Court Opinion

ID: 9660915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:23:52.136408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.232938
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(dissenting as to defendant Worthy). The language quoted in the majority opinion herein between the trial court and Mr. Worthy is not unqualifiedly indicative that Mr. Worthy did discharge his lawyer and defend himself or wished to do so. The language and conduct of the defendant is not convincing that he wished to try his case in his proper person.
In People v. Henley (1965), 2 Mich App 54, this Court stated as follows:
“The Constitution of the United States does not force a lawyer upon the defendant. He may waive his constitutional rights to assistance of counsel if he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with open eyes. See Johnson v. Zerbst (1937), 304 US 458 (58 S Ct 1019, 82 L Ed 1461).”
The trial judge herein was in the best position to determine whether the defendant waived his constitutional rights to assistance of counsel, whether *503the defendant knew what he was doing, and whether the defendant’s choice was made with open eyes.
The majority opinion further observes: “The quality of counsel proffered is not relevant here.” This being so, all the more reason why there was no prejudicial error and the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
Both convictions should be affirmed.