McCook v. State, 71792
Decision Date | 13 March 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 71792,71792 |
Citation | 342 S.E.2d 757,178 Ga.App. 276 |
Parties | McCOOK v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sharon R. Jones, Milledgeville, for appellant.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Alberto C. Martinez, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
David McCook brings this appeal from his conviction and sentence of two counts of child molestation and one count of aggravated sodomy. In his sole enumeration of error appellant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether he intelligently and competently waived his right to counsel and elected to proceed pro se at trial. Held:
Counsel was appointed to represent appellant several weeks prior to trial. Counsel worked with appellant during that time, which included representing him at a preliminary hearing, but on the day prior to arraignment, appellant dismissed appointed counsel. At arraignment appellant indicated that he intended to represent himself for the time being but was trying to find another attorney. The trial court asked, Appellant responded, "Yes, sir." At a subsequent pretrial motions hearing appellant again represented himself. After noting that appellant had previously "terminated" his appointed counsel, the trial court asked appellant if he still wished to represent himself. He requested appellant to "state plainly and unequivocally" that he did not want counsel to assist him during the course of trial, to which appellant replied, "I do not desire counsel, and I intend to represent myself." The trial court then found that appellant had knowingly waived his right to counsel. On the day prior to trial the court appointed an attorney to assist appellant with procedural issues during the course of trial. In response to a question from the court, appellant indicated that he understood that this attorney was not being appointed to represent him.
Clarke v. Zant, 247 Ga. 194, 196, 275 S.E.2d 49 (1981). Indeed, our Supreme Court has directed that Id. at 197, 275 S.E.2d 49.
We have no doubt on the basis of the record before us that appellant was aware of his right to counsel. It is equally apparent, however, that the trial court made no inquiry of appellant as to his background or experience and also made no warning to appellant of the dangers of proceeding without counsel. We are thus unable to conclude from the record on appeal that appellant's waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. See Glaze v. State, 172 Ga.App. 802, 325 S.E.2d 172 (1984); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamilton v. State
...whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) McCook v. State, 178 Ga.App. 276, 342 S.E.2d 757 (1986). See also Johnson v. Zerbst, supra at 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019; Clarke v. Zant, supra at 196, 275 S.E.2d 49. "In order to establish a ......
-
Tyner v. State
...when it is unlikely that appellant's convictions were attributable to his decision to represent himself[,]" citing McCook v. State, 178 Ga.App. 276, 342 S.E.2d 757 (1986).7 Pretermitting whether Tyner's convictions were attributable to his decision to represent himself, we are precluded fro......
-
Rutledge v. State
...court erred in allowing defendant to represent himself, any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. McCook v. State, 178 Ga.App. 276, 277, 342 S.E.2d 757 (1986). The trial transcript indicates that defendant had a clear understanding of the nature of the charges against him, of t......
-
Tinker v. State, A95A1789
...use of such a procedural adviser/observer is not error. Hose v. State, 161 Ga.App. 401, 288 S.E.2d 675 (1982); see McCook v. State, 178 Ga.App. 276, 277, 342 S.E.2d 757 (1986); Williams, supra at 815, 315 S.E.2d Having waived his right to be present for the remainder of his trial, Stell v. ......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...Rutledge v. State, 224 Ga. App. 666, 669, 482 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1997)). 5. Id. at 466, 504 S.E.2d at 239 (quoting McCook v. State, 178 Ga. App. 276, 276-77, 342 S.E.2d 757, 758-59 (1986)). 6. See McCook, 178 Ga. App. at 277, 342 S.E.2d at 759. 7. 233 Ga. App. at 467, 504 S.E.2d at 240. 8. Jo......