Waiver of the right to counsel; Compliance with MCR 6.005(E); People v Helmer; Applicability of People v King

Rejecting defendant’s claim that his waiver of counsel was deficient and failed to comply with MCR 6.005(E), the court affirmed his convictions of AWIM, FIP, felony-firearm, and transportation or possession of a loaded firearm in or upon a vehicle. He argued “that the trial court’s failure to reaffirm his waiver of his right to counsel until after jury selection deprived him of his right to counsel during a critical stage of the proceedings.” The court disagreed. While he relied on King in asserting that a trial court has to strictly adhere to MCR 6.005(E)’s requirements, the court found that case “factually and legally inapposite[.]” King only addressed a defendant’s initial waiver, which was not an issue here. And while it mentioned MCR 6.005(D)’s requirements, “subsection (E) was neither considered nor addressed in that opinion.” The court additionally found that there was “no support for the proposition that MCR 6.005(E) must be strictly adhered to, and, in this case, the trial court asked defendant at the beginning of the trial whether he wished to represent himself. [He] stated that he continued to desire to represent himself.” He offered “no argument or precedent that would require a trial court ask that question before voir dire.” Thus, as Helmer held that “compliance with MCR 6.005(E) is not a constitutional requirement, . . . defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel during jury selection, and the trial court did not err.”