From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Videtto

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County
Apr 14, 2003
ID No. 0104008670 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2003)

Opinion

ID No. 0104008670.

April 14, 2003.

Supreme Court No. 714, 2002

REPORT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULES 19 AND 26(d)(iii)


This 14th day of April, 2003, upon remand of this matter on March 27, 2003 to the Superior Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 19 and 26(d) (iii) and following an evidentiary hearing on April 11, 2003, it appears that:

(1) Videtto has not retained private counsel to represent him on appeal.

(2) Videtto is indigent. He has a high school diploma and limited familiarity with the criminal justice system. He understands his right to court-appointed counsel to assist him on appeal. He also understands that he must accept representation on appeal by his present court-appointed counsel or proceed pro se. He has elected to proceed pro se.

(3) Videtto has consulted with another person in the making of his decision to waive his right to counsel and has chosen not to identify such person.

(4) Videtto understands that the appellate process involves the application of rules of procedure that may prove difficult for a nonlawyer to understand.

(5) Videtto understands that not withstanding his lack of legal training, he will be required to comply with all pertinent rules of the Supreme Court.

(6) Videtto understands that noncompliance with pertinent rules of the Supreme Court may delay or prejudice his appeal.

(7) Videtto understands that the allowance of oral argument is discretionary with the Court, and that the Court's practice in criminal cases is not to grant oral argument to pro se litigants.

(8) Videtto understands that if his waiver of counsel is accepted, he will not thereafter be permitted to interrupt or delay the appellate process to secure the assistance of court-appointed counsel simply because he has changed his position.

(9) Videtto is competent to waive his constitutional and statutory rights to the assistance of counsel on appeal.

(10) Videtto's decision to proceed pro se rather than be represented by court-appointed counsel has been made knowingly and voluntarily.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Prothonotary shall forth with transmit these findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Delaware.


Summaries of

State v. Videtto

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County
Apr 14, 2003
ID No. 0104008670 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2003)
Case details for

State v. Videtto

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF DELAWARE v. CHRISTOPHER J. VIDETTO, Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County

Date published: Apr 14, 2003

Citations

ID No. 0104008670 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2003)