Right to self-representation; Indiana v Edwards; Waiver of right to counsel; MCR 6.005(D); People v Anderson

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for self-representation. He was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of felonious assault, AWIM, FIP, and six counts of felony-firearm, arising from a physical altercation and double-murder that occurred at an apartment building. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 25 to 50 years for each second-degree murder conviction and his AWIM conviction, 1 to 4 years for each of felonious assault conviction, 1 to 5 for FIP, and 2 years for each of his felony-firearm convictions. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by denying his request to represent himself at trial. It noted that although the trial court “did not proceed systematically by considering the Anderson” criteria, it did explain “the ‘risk involved in self representation,’ given that the trial was scheduled to commence in four days, and defendant had just received his discovery package.” In addition, the trial court’s observation that “no one would be able to prepare for ‘this trial’ over a weekend might reasonably be presumed to refer to the severity of the charges,” which included two counts of first-degree murder, and the sentences such charges carried. “After the trial court’s warning, defendant affirmed that he understood and apparently acquiesced to the trial court’s recommendation since he did not contest the trial court’s advice or renew his request to represent himself anytime thereafter.” Finally, the record showed defendant “was given the benefit of both self-representation and representation by his trial counsel . . . .” In light of the trial court’s “initial advice to defendant, [his] statement that he understood the [trial] court’s position, and his apparent abandonment of the request for self-representation,” the court could not “say that defendant’s initial request for self-representation was unequivocal.” Affirmed.