Court Opinion

ID: 5155242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 02:15:12.108264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:27.200655
License: Public Domain

[1] OPINION
[2] Michael Laroy Coleman, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information in Case No. CRF-77-31 with the crime of Attempted Robbery With a Deadly Weapon, pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 1973 § 801[21-801], in the District Court of Creek County. The defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense charged. In the second stage of the trial, the defendant was found guilty of Attempted Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony, pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 1976 § 51[21-51], and sentenced to serve twenty-five (25) years in the custody of the State Department of Corrections.
[3] The defendant's sole assignment of error is that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right of self-representation. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. In a letter to the trial judge filed February 22, 1978, defendant accused his court-appointed attorney of being incompetent and in breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At a hearing held February 24, 1978, the defendant requested that his court-appointed attorney be dismissed and that other counsel be appointed. At this hearing it was revealed that the defendant had previously been represented by two other court-appointed attorneys. After hearing the defendant's allegations of inadequate representation, the court denied the request, and the cause was tried on March 6, 1978.
[4] The right to self-representation is one which a defendant must clearly and unequivocally assert before trial. See Felts v.State, Okla. Cr. 588 P.2d 572 (1978). In the case at bar, the defendant made no request to represent himself; therefore, he was not denied his Sixth Amendment right.
[5] The defendant also asserts that under the circumstances the court had an affirmative duty to inform him of his right to self-representation. We are of the opinion that this assertion is without merit. Where a defendant requests to have appointed counsel dismissed and new counsel appointed, the trial court has no duty to inform him of his right to self-representation. SeeFelts v. State, supra.
[6] For the foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence isAFFIRMED.
[7] CORNISH, P.J., and BUSSEY, J., concur. *Page 144