Court Opinion

ID: 9743692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:40:34.268336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.788654
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. Upon denying Maisonet's request for co-counsel at the beginning of the habitual offender stage, the trial court stated: "That's one of the reasons why we try to discourage you from representing yourself...." Record, p. 220. Unfortunately, the record indicates that the trial court did not discourage Maisonet from proceeding without counsel. In other words, the trial court failed to elicit a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel, contrary to the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Houston v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 117.
The docket entry on the date Maisonet moved to proceed without counsel states:
Defendant Carlos Maisonet appears in court with Public Defender Stanley Jab-lonski. Defendant moves that Public Defender be forced to withdraw his appearance in this cause and that he be allowed to proceed pro se. Public Defender joins in that motion. Motion is granted. Defendant is allowed to proceed pro se and the cause is affirmed for trial by jury on June 18, 1990.
Record, p. 19.
The sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees to a criminal defendant the right to represent himself if he so chooses. Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562. However, when a defendant elects to proceed pro se, the trial court must establish a record showing that the defendant was made aware of the nature, extent, and importance of the right to counsel and the consequences of waiving it. McKeown v. State (1990), Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 3, 6, trans. denied; McDandal v. State (1979), *663180 Ind.App. 654, 390 N.E.2d 216. The trial court did not establish such a record in this case, and we may not infer waiver of the right to assistance of counsel from a silent record. Jackson v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 29.
Although Maisonet did not raise this issue in his brief, the error is fundamental, and the Majority should consider it sua sponte. Maisonet's conviction and habitual offender enhancement should be vacated, and this cause remanded for a new trial.