Jenkins v. State

18 Citing cases

  1. Connell v. City of Daphne

    292 So. 3d 1129 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019)

    "To establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel, ‘the record at the outset of the trial should establish three factors: 1) that the defendant was informed that he had the right to counsel, 2) that the defendant was informed that if he could not afford counsel the state would appoint counsel to represent him, and 3) an affirmative showing by the defendant that, understanding these rights, he still elects to proceed without counsel.’ " 851 So. 2d at 101 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 482 So. 2d 1315, 1317 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) ). The United States Supreme Court has held that, "in order to represent himself, the accused must ‘knowingly and intelligently’ forgo" the benefits of counsel.

  2. Connell v. City of Daphne

    CR-17-0943 (Ala. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2019)

    "To establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel, 'the record at the outset of the trial should establish three factors: 1) that the defendant was informed that he had the right to counsel, 2) that the defendant was informed that if he could not afford counsel the state would appoint counsel to represent him, and 3) an affirmative showing by the defendant that, understanding these rights, he still elects to proceed without counsel.'" 851 So. 2d at 101 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 482 So. 2d 1315, 1317 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)). The United States Supreme Court has held that "in order to represent himself, the accused must 'knowingly and intelligently' forgo" the benefits of counsel.

  3. Fountain v. State

    586 So. 2d 277 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 41 times

    The trial court instructs the jury as to what the law is and how it applies."Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315, 1316 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied, 482 So.2d 1315 (Ala. 1986). Because the trial court itself correctly charged the jury on the legal principles applicable to the facts of the case, including the presumption of innocence and the concept of forcible compulsion, the trial court correctly sustained the State's objection to defense counsel's attempt to discuss the law in its closing argument.

  4. Ex Parte Shelton

    851 So. 2d 96 (Ala. 2000)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    To establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel, "the record at the outset of the trial should establish three factors: 1) that the defendant was informed that he had the right to counsel, 2) that the defendant was informed that if he could not afford counsel the state would appoint counsel to represent him, and 3) an affirmative showing by the defendant that, understanding these rights, he still elects to proceed without counsel." Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315, 1317 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). The record fails to establish that Shelton "was offered counsel" as required by Carnley, supra.

  5. Tomlin v. State

    601 So. 2d 124 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 48 times
    In Tomlin, this Court discussed six factors a court should weigh in determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his or her right to counsel.

    This court looks to a totality of the circumstances involved in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); King v. State, 55 Ala. App. 306, 314 So.2d 908 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975), cert. denied; Ex parte King, 294 Ala. 762, 314 So.2d 912 (1975). The Court of Criminal Appeals looked to factors set out in Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d 1057, to determine if the waiver in this case was made knowingly and intelligently. Although the Court of Criminal Appeals found Tomlin's waiver invalid, we realize that the entire record was not before that court. That court relied upon the following factors:

  6. Dearman v. State

    No. CR-18-0060 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 5, 2022)

    Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315 (Ala.Crim.App.1985); King v. State, 55 Ala.App. 306, 314 So.2d 908 (Ala. Cr. App. 1975), cert. denied; Ex parte King, 294 Ala. 762, 314 So.2d 912 (1975)."

  7. Flagg v. State

    272 So. 3d 233 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    " ‘ "This court looks to a totality of the circumstances involved in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985) ; King v. State, 55 Ala. App. 306, 314 So.2d 908 (Ala. Cr. App. 1975), cert. denied; Ex parte King, 294 Ala. 762, 314 So.2d 912 (1975)."

  8. Battles v. State

    263 So. 3d 1087 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    " ‘This court looks to a totality of the circumstances involved in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985) ; King v. State, 55 Ala.App. 306, 314 So.2d 908 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975), cert. denied; Ex parte King, 294 Ala. 762, 314 So.2d 912 (1975).’

  9. Floyd v. State

    289 So. 3d 337 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the first Skilling factor weighed in favor of a finding of presumed prejudice in a case that occurred in "a relatively small rural county … of just over 38,000 residents

    "This court looks to a totality of the circumstances involved in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Jenkins v. State, 482 So. 2d 1315 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985) ; King v. State, 55 Ala. App. 306, 314 So. 2d 908 (Ala. Cr. App. 1975), cert. denied, Ex parte King, 294 Ala. 762, 314 So. 2d 912 (1975)."The Court of Criminal Appeals looked to factors set out in Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d 1057, to determine if the waiver in this case was made knowingly and intelligently....

  10. Kennedy v. State

    186 So. 3d 507 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    “This court looks to a totality of the circumstances involved in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Jenkins v. State, 482 So.2d 1315 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); King v. State, 55 Ala.App. 306, 314 So.2d 908 (Ala.Cr.App.1975), cert. denied; Ex parte King, 294 Ala. 762, 314 So.2d 912 (1975).”