Court Opinion

ID: 9649754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:08:22.505191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:23.550868
License: Public Domain

WILNER, Judge,
concurring.
I write separately in this case only to emphasize the point made by Judge Bell in the concluding paragraph of her discussion of the first issue.
*57There is, in my judgment, no clear boundary line between hybrid representation and self-representation. Moreover, when, as in this case, a request for some degree of self-representation is made before trial, there is no way that the court ever can know on what side of the murky line the matter will fall. As Judge Bell points out, there are a number of factors to be considered, all of which are necessarily considered ex post facto. A trial judge is running a very substantial risk of reversal if he or she does not conduct the full waiver inquiry required by Rule 4-215. I would not like to see that point lost because in this case we are affirming the judgment.