Cited by

To ensure a waiver is valid, a defendant “should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ ” (quoting Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835).

with eyes open.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Camacho , see U.S. Const. amend s. VI , XIV.

“Evidence of the defendant’ s irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are relevant in determining whether there is reason to doubt the defendant’s competence.”

See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 395-402 (1993) (holding the legal standard for competence to waive counsel is the same as the legal standard for competence to stand trial); -72 (Minn. 1997) (applying Godinez to a defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel) .

whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel.” Richards, d at 263; (holding that if a district court “has reason to doubt [a] defendant’s competence” it must also find the defendant is competent to stand trial before determining whether the defendant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntar y).

“The fact that a defendant may first request another attorn ey before choosing self -representation will not by itself undermine the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent nature of the defendant’s waiver of counsel.”

Denial of the right to counsel is a structural error, which “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.” Maddox, d at 147 ().

In support of that principle, Rolack cites Drape v. Missouri, 42 0 U.S. 16 2 (1975)

Before waiving the right to counsel, defendants should be advised of the risks of self-representation to ensure “[they] know what [they are] doing and [their] choice is made with eyes open.” (quoting Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541 (1975)).

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 113 S. Ct. 2680, 2685 (1993) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S. Ct. 836, 838 (1966)); -74 (Minn. 1997).

Denial of counsel is a structural error, Bonga, d at 643, and requires no showing of prejudice to reverse

d 633, 636 (Minn. 1977).

When the evidence relating to the defendant’s mental condition is undisputed and the district court did not further inquire into the defendant’s competence, we review the record “to determine whether the district court gave 7 proper weight to the information s uggesting incompetence.” State v. Camacho

Structural error “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.”

(“The fact that a defendant may first request another 1 It would have been best if the district court had utilized Minn. R. Crim.

Structural error “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.”

State v. Camacho , 1 Just like the phrase “pro se, ” we understand a defendant referring to themselves as appearing “in propria persona” as meaning that they are representing themselves in court.

Structural error “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.”

The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error,” d 639, 643 (Minn. 2009), that “does not require a showing of prej udice to obtain reversal,”

(citation and quotations omitted).

The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error,” that “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.”

d 160, 168 (Minn. 1997).

To determine if a defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel is voluntary and intelligent, a district court should “comprehensively examine the defendant regarding the defendant’s comprehension of the charges, the possible punishments, mitigating circumstances, and any other facts relevant to the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of the waiver.” State v. Camacho

To determine if a defendant’ s waiver of his right to counsel is knowing and intelligent, a district court should “comprehensively examine the defendant regarding the defendant’ s comprehension of the charges, the possible punishments, mitigating circumstances, and any other facts relevant to the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of the waiver.” State v. Camacho , (M inn.

Therefore, to obtain reversal, it “does not require a showing of prejudice.”