Right to self-representation; Faretta v California; Waiver; MCR 6.005(D); People v Anderson; Whether defendant knowingly, intelligently, & voluntarily waived his right to counsel; People v Williams; The trial court’s duty to explain the dangers & disadvantages of self-representation; Iowa v Tovar; Whether defendant was entitled to a new trial; Principle that denial of counsel at a critical stage of a criminal proceeding is a structural error; Principle that trial & sentencing are critical stages; Whether the denial of defendant’s right to counsel had “a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial”

The court held that defendant was entitled to a new trial because the trial court “did not follow the requisite procedure to ensure [he] knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.” He was convicted of AWIGBH and reckless driving after encountering a group of protestors and striking one of them with his vehicle. Defendant waived his right to counsel after he was bound over to the trial court. On appeal, defendant argued his trial was constitutionally deficient because during his waiver of counsel, the trial court did not follow the requisite procedure to ensure he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The prosecution agreed that the trial court erred, but contended defendant was not entitled to relief because the error did not ultimately affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding. The court concurred with the parties that there was no dispute that defendant’s waiver of counsel was ineffective, finding it was “obvious the trial court failed to substantially comply with” the requirements of MCR 6.005(D) and Anderson. It then found that defendant was entitled to a new trial. “[D]efendant’s ineffective waiver denied him the effective assistance of counsel throughout the majority of proceedings in the trial court. The ineffective waiver resulted in [his] not being able to pursue plea negotiations, properly introduce evidence or otherwise conduct effective trial proceedings testing the veracity of the evidence against him or even develop and argue an effective defense to the charges against him.” And the prosecutor “failed to rebut the presumption that the deprivation of defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel had a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial.” Vacated and remanded.