Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2008AP1521-CR State v. Imani

By: dmc-admin//July 12, 2010//

2008AP1521-CR State v. Imani

By: dmc-admin//July 12, 2010//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Right to counsel; right to self-representation

Where a defendant did not validly waive his right to counsel, the circuit court could not violate his right to self-representation.

"We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Imani's motion to represent himself. First, we determine that Imani did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to counsel. The circuit court engaged Imani in two of the four lines of inquiry prescribed in Klessig and properly determined that Imani (1) did not make a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, and (2) was unaware of the difficulties and disadvantages of self-representation. If any one of the four conditions prescribed in Klessig is not met, the circuit court is required to conclude that the defendant did not validly waive the right to counsel. Second, we conclude that the circuit court's determination that Imani was not competent to proceed pro se is supported by the facts in the record. Because Imani did not validly waive his right to counsel and was not competent to proceed pro se, the circuit court was required to prevent him from representing himself."

Reversed.

2008AP1521-CR State v. Imani

Ziegler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Loeb, Basil M., Wauwatosa; For Respondent: Balistreri, Thomas J., Madison; Schimel, Brad, Waukesha

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests