Waiver of the right to counsel; People v King; People v Anderson; MCR 6.005(D); People v Adkins (After Remand)

Holding that defendant did not establish that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid, the court affirmed his convictions of CSC I and III. He argued that “the trial court failed to comply with mandatory prerequisites necessary to support a finding that [he] knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.” The court disagreed. The record indicated “the trial court substantially complied with the substance of Anderson. [It] engaged in a lengthy colloquy with defendant in which [it] repeatedly asked [him] if he was requesting to represent himself, discussed at great length with defendant the perils of self-representation, and described in detail the limitations the trial court would place upon [his] actions at trial, such as his cross-examination of the victim. [It] also cautioned defendant that his self-representation would not be allowed to disrupt, unduly inconvenience, or burden the trial court’s conduct of the trial. [He] consistently and repeatedly assured the trial court that he understood [its] warnings regarding the pitfalls of self-representation and was unequivocal in his decision to represent himself.” The court also determined that the trial court “substantially complied with” MCR 6.005(D)’s requirements. As in Adkins, “the trial court’s failure to ‘specifically address the charged offense and the range of possible punishment [at the initial waiver] is not enough to defeat a finding of substantial compliance with the waiver procedures in this case.’” The court noted that the record was “replete with instances where the severity of the charges and the potential penalty was discussed with defendant and in defendant’s presence.”