Background
Shawnee Lynn Krall was convicted by a Ward County jury of two counts of possession of a weapon by an inmate, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12-44.1-21(5)(a) and (b).
Krall initially chose to represent himself. Nineteen days before trial, however, he changed his mind and unequivocally requested appointed counsel. He renewed that request on the morning of trial. The district court denied both requests and allowed Krall to proceed pro se.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court summarily reversed the criminal judgment and remanded for further proceedings under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b).
The court held that the record did not establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. The district court never advised Krall of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, failed to inquire into his stated changed circumstances when he again sought counsel, and perfunctorily denied his requests. Those circumstances violated Krall’s Sixth Amendment and state constitutional right to counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent.
- A court must advise a self-represented defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
- When a defendant renews an unequivocal request for counsel before trial, the court must meaningfully address the request and the circumstances offered in support of it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a defendant’s earlier choice of self-representation does not relieve a trial court of its duty to ensure a valid waiver of counsel. A record devoid of Faretta warnings cannot support a finding that the defendant knowingly and intelligently gave up that right.