State v. Brewer, 24699
Citation | 328 S.C. 117,492 S.E.2d 97 |
Decision Date | 13 October 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 24699,24699 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Johnny BREWER, Appellant. |
John D. Delgado, Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Donald J. Zelenka, Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, Lexington, for respondent.
Following the denial of appellant's motion to proceed pro se in this capital case, we issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the circuit court. We reverse.
It is well-established that an accused may waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107, 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977). Although a defendant's decision to proceed pro se may be to the defendant's own detriment, it "must be honored out of that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. at 834, 95 S.Ct. at 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d at 581.
The right to proceed pro se must be clearly asserted by the defendant prior to trial. State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 405 S.E.2d 377 (1991); United States v. Lorick, 753 F.2d 1295 (4th Cir.1985). The trial judge has the responsibility to ensure that the accused is informed of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and makes a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Faretta v. California, supra; State v. Dixon, supra. The ultimate test of whether a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel is not the trial judge's advice, but the defendant's understanding. Graves v. State, 309 S.C. 307, 422 S.E.2d 125 (1992). A determination by the trial judge that the accused lacks the expertise or technical legal knowledge to proceed pro se does not justify a denial of the right to self-representation; the only relevant inquiry is whether the accused made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Faretta v. California, supra; United States v. Bennett, 539 F.2d 45 (10th Cir.1976).
In ruling on appellant's motion to proceed pro se, the trial judge stated, Although the judge found that he had adequately explained appellant's right of self-representation and appellant understood it, he stated that appellant did not "appreciate it" and had failed to "accept it." According to the trial judge, "because of the irreversible nature of the consequences," allowing appellant to represent himself in this case "is fraught with inherent disastrous consequences."
There is no prohibition against a capital defendant knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel. See State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 347 S.E.2d 882 (1986) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Roof
...See Silagy v. Peters , 905 F.2d 986, 1006-08 (7th Cir. 1990) ; Sherwood v. State , 717 N.E.2d 131, 135 (Ind. 1999) ; State v. Brewer , 328 S.C. 117, 492 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1997) ; People v. Coleman , 168 Ill.2d 509, 214 Ill.Dec. 212, 660 N.E.2d 919, 937-38 (1995) ; Bishop v. State , 95 Nev. 511......
-
State v. Gunches
...214 Ill.Dec. 212, 660 N.E.2d 919, 937 (1995) ; Sherwood v. Indiana , 717 N.E.2d 131, 135 (Ind. 1999) ; South Carolina v. Brewer , 328 S.C. 117, 492 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1997). ¶ 8 As long as the defendant “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel,” he may properly “re......
-
State v. Barnes
...A capital defendant, like any other criminal defendant, may waive his right to counsel. State v. Starnes, supra;State v. Brewer, 328 S.C. 117, 492 S.E.2d 97 (1997). So long as the defendant makes his request prior to trial, the only proper inquiry is that mandated by Faretta.State v. Winkle......
-
State v. Jones
...v. Mems, 281 N.C. 658, 190 S.E.2d 164, 173 (1972) ; Commonwealth v. Davido, 582 Pa. 52, 868 S.2d 431, 444 (2005) ; State v. Brewer, 328 S.C. 117, 492 S.E.2d 97, 98–99 (1997) ) ). However, there are three essential prerequisites that must be present before the right of self-representation be......