Williams v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Harris v. State

    27 So. 3d 564 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    The Committee Comments to that Rule state that "[t]he court is required to inform the defendant that the waiver may be withdrawn since under section (c) the defendant has the burden of requesting counsel if he later decides to withdraw the waiver." Accord Williams v. State, 958 So.2d 911 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006). Alabama appellate courts have often acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court does not require a specific colloquy between a defendant and a trial court to effectuate a waiver of the right to counsel.

  2. Ex Parte State

    27 So. 3d 582 (Ala. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Although Harris had fired his attorneys several days before trial, at least one of those attorneys was in the courtroom with him and was still available to serve as his counsel at trial, at Harris's election and/or the trial court's direction. "even if we agreed with the trial court that Harris was deliberately attempting to delay the trial by making unwarranted accusations regarding defense counsel, we would still be compelled to reverse the conviction here because the trial court made no effort to advise Harris of the pitfalls associated with self-representation. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 958 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006) (`Even if we were to hold that the appellant impliedly waived his right to counsel when he fired his attorney during a recess in the proceedings, the record in this case does not indicate that the trial court ever advised the appellant about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. . . .')."Harris v. State, 27 So.3d at 579.

  3. Thomas v. State

    8 So. 3d 1018 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that it was not apparent whether the defendant sought to represent himself, or whether he actually sought a continuance to obtain different counsel

    Even if we were to find that the record in this case supported a finding that Thomas knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, the record does not indicate that the trial court properly advised him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and it did not advise him that he could revoke his waiver at any time during the proceedings. See Williams v. State, 958 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala. Crim.App. 2006), and Leonard v. State, 484 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). An argument might be made that the trial court's admonitions to Thomas that he abide by the trial court's rulings on objections and that he conduct himself in a professional manner or he would face possible expulsion from the courtroom were attempts to apprise Thomas of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.

  4. Powers v. State

    985 So. 2d 495 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    The Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court's judgment, however, holding that the trial court had deprived the defendant of his right to counsel as required by the federal and state constitutions and Rule 6.1(a), Ala. R.Crim. P. ("A defendant shall be entitled to be represented by counsel in any criminal proceedings held pursuant to these rules and, if indigent, shall be entitled to have an attorney appointed to represent the defendant in all criminal proceedings in which representation by counsel is constitutionally required."). See also Williams v. State, 958 So.2d 911 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006) (new trial required for defendant who fired counsel on day of trial and requested new counsel and a continuance, both of which were denied and defendant was made to represent himself). In King, the Supreme Court included a footnote stating: "Although the trial court may have been exasperated with King at this point in this long litigation, the trial court could have appointed standby counsel when the trial court granted King's motion to represent himself, as is recommended by Rule 6.1(b), Ala. R.Crim. P."