Motion for a new trial; Whether defendant requested substitute counsel; Self-representation; Substantial compliance with People v Anderson & MCR 6.005(D); People v King; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Investigation of defendant’s mental health/pursuing an insanity defense; Failure to inform the trial court of the attorney-client relationship breakdown; Denial of request for trial adjournment; Good cause; People v Coy

The court concluded that defendant did not request substitute counsel, and that the trial court substantially complied with Anderson and MCR 6.005(D) before allowing him to represent himself. It also rejected his claims that appointed counsel was ineffective and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to adjourn the trial. Thus, it affirmed his resisting and obstructing a police officer and assaulting a prison employee convictions, and the denial of his motion for a new trial. As to his claim that the trial court failed to explore his purported request for new counsel, the record showed “that after three times saying he wanted to ‘dismiss’ his court-appointed attorney, defendant did not say he wanted different counsel, he interrupted the trial judge and stated that he wanted to represent himself. [He] was unequivocal throughout the record in stating he wanted to represent himself, which the trial court, in considering his motion for a new trial, suggested meant ‘this was something [d]efendant may have already been contemplating.’ Defendant subsequently criticized appointed counsel, but he did so while attempting to oppose the trial judge’s desire that appointed counsel remain on standby to assist him during trial, when defendant had made it clear he wanted to represent himself. [He] also complained about appointed counsel in his motion for dismissal, but he did not request another attorney, nor did he do so when they reconvened for trial.” As to granting his self-representation request, the request “was unequivocal, continuing, and unwavering.” It was clear from the record “that the trial court informed defendant both verbally and in writing of the dangers and disadvantages” of representing himself but he continued to assert his right to do so. Further, the prosecution informed him “of the charges and the maximum prison sentences as a habitual offender. Finally, as required by MCR 6.005(D)(2), in making defendant aware that he could call on appointed counsel for assistance, the trial court availed [him] of the opportunity to consult with prior counsel.” The court also found that appointed counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate defendant’s mental illness history and raise an insanity defense or for not informing the trial court of the attorney-client relationship breakdown.