Court Opinion

ID: 9529686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:53:21.573591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:53.552992
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
with whom Springer, J., joins,
dissenting:
I dissent. The district court failed to adequately canvass Graves to establish that he intelligently and knowingly waived his right to counsel.
A criminal defendant has the right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 818-19 (1975). However, an accused who chooses self-representation must knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel.1 Id. at 835. Such a choice can be *130competent and intelligent even though the accused lacks the skill and experience of a lawyer, but the record should establish that the accused was made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Id.
The trial court must canvass a defendant to determine whether his or her waiver of the right to counsel is valid. Cohen v. State, 97 Nev. 166, 168, 625 P.2d 1170, 1171 (1981).
“To be valid such waiver must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter. A judge can make certain that an accused’s professed waiver of counsel is understandingly and wisely made only from a penetrating and comprehensive examination of . all the circumstances under which such a plea is tendered.”
Id. (quoting Garnick v. Miller, 81 Nev. 372, 376, 403 P.2d 850, 853 (1965)).
The test of the validity of a waiver is not whether the court explained the elements of the charged offense or possible defenses to the defendant or provided other specific warnings or advisements, “‘but whether the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant understood the disadvantages of self-representation, including the risks and complexities of the particular case.’” Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 980, 843 P.2d 800, 802-03 (1992) (quoting People v. Bloom, 774 P.2d 698, 716 (Cal. 1989), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1039 (1990)). Determining the validity of a waiver of the right to counsel requires “a fact-specific inquiry focused on the background, experience and conduct of the accused.” Haberstroh v. State, 109 Nev. 22, 25, 846 P.2d 289, 292, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 858, 114 S. Ct. 169 (1993).
vass as a whole and it is not necessary that the accused establish that he is competent to represent himself, these cases establish that certain matters should be part of a Faretta canvass. These matters are: (1) the nature of the charges, (2) the sentences for *131each charge and the total possible sentence the defendant could receive, (3) the possible defenses and mitigating facts the defendant might be able to assert, (4) the background and education of the accused, (5) the defendant’s experience with and understanding of the legal system, and (6) the defendant’s understanding of the right to legal representation that he is surrendering and the disadvantages of self-representation.
The canvass that Graves underwent did not enable the trial court to determine whether Graves’ waiver Of his right to counsel was knowing and intelligent, and the record as a whole does not demonstrate that Graves understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The canvass informed Graves only of the dangers of self-representation and that the court thought it a bad idea. The trial court did not determine that Graves understood the nature of the charges he faced, possible defenses or mitigating circumstances, or the range of the allowable punishments involved, and it did not inquire into the background, education, or experience of the defendant. Particularly significant was the court’s failure to discuss with Graves the severe risks he faced in the form of the habitual criminal enhancement sought by the State.
The canvass consisted primarily of the trial court’s admonishments to Graves to the effect that he was foolish to forgo counsel and a number of questions that elicited pro forma affirmatives from Graves. Graves’ only response that was more than a brief affirmative was his statement that he had had the preliminary transcript for over a month, had reviewed it and the police reports several times, and was ready. It was, of course, appropriate for the court to advise Graves that if he represented himself, he would be held accountable to court procedures, rules, and decorum. However, the court did not inquire into Graves’ understanding of the complexity of those procedures and rules and the difficulty of conforming to them. It was also appropriate for the court to inform Graves that he would be giving up the right to appeal his case based on ineffective assistance of counsel and that his standby counsel would not be permitted to make objections for him during the course of a trial. However, these warnings did not establish a record that demonstrates that Graves was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
The canvass did not provide the trial court with an opportunity to assess the intelligence of Graves’ waiver because the court did not elicit from Graves responses indicating his knowledge of the case or his understanding of how lack of a counsel could hinder his defense. The court’s leading questions did not draw forth answers that revealed the extent of Graves’ understanding or *132misunderstanding of the risks and complexities of his case and the dangers of self-representation.
The district court did not canvass Graves as to his background and experience. Nothing in the record, including his conduct during the trial, shows that he had sufficient education and experience to allow this court to conclude that his waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. Cf. Haberstroh, 109 Nev. at 29, 846 P.2d at 292-93 (mechanical performance of Faretta canvass unnecessary where appellant had previously been thoroughly canvassed, competently represented himself at earlier trial, completed high school and two years of college, researched and wrote his own motion to proceed pro se, and appeared intelligent, under control, and familiar with the evidence against him at trial).
This court should reverse because the district court’s canvass failed to establish that Graves knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

It is also important to note that a district court has the discretion “to deny a request for self-representation on the ground of untimeliness alone, if the request is not made within a reasonable time before commencement of trial or hearing and there is no showing of reasonable cause for the lateness of the request.” Lyons v. State, 106 Nev. 438, 445-46, 796 P.2d 210, 214 (1990), cert. denied, ...... U.S. ......, 113 S. Ct. 1824 (1993). A request is timely when it is early enough to allow the defendant to prepare for trial without a continuance. Id. at 446, 796 P.2d at 214.
Graves’ trial was set to begin on June 1, 1993. Just one week before that, on May 25, the district court learned that Graves intended to move to *130represent himself. On June 1, the day set for trial, Graves formally requested that he be allowed to represent himself, and the court canvassed him and granted the request. Over Graves’ objection, the court reset the trial to June 28 to provide Graves with time to prepare.
Since the district court here found a continuance necessary, it had the authority to deny the request as untimely if Graves did not show reasonable cause for the lateness of the request. However, the court failed to inquire into the reasons for the late request.