Court Opinion

ID: 9551239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:49:46.49635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:22.287291
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(concurring in results).
I concur in the results reached in this decision. The trial judge did almost everything he could to assure that the defendant had legal representation, but the defendant declined to accept the attorney appointed for him. I believe in these situations that the trial judge should insist, notwithstanding the defendant’s right to properly waive counsel, that a standby counsel be appointed to advise the defendant. This should be done whether or not the defendant takes advantage of the assistance made available to him. The situation in this case was somewhat different to that found in Faretta v. California, supra; therefore, it is not specifically applicable herein. However, the principle laid down in Faretta is noteworthy subject to a full record inquiry and disclosure by the trial court and the defendant. It is not enough for the defendant to merely state that he desires to proceed as his own attorney. In Cothrum v. State, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 1298 (1972), Cothrum was permitted to proceed as his own *1298attorney, but he accepted the standby counsel for assistance. It has always been the general rule in Oklahoma that standards higher than what is required by the federal courts are required for our trial courts, and I can see no reason to vary from that general requirement in these types of cases. Otherwise, I concur in the results reached in this decision.