|
No. 123537
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Jon P. Wojtala
(313) 224-5796 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| vs
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Wayne -- Hathaway, D.) |
|
|
| Rodney Williams, |
|
Susan M. Meinberg (313) 256-9833 |
|
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| _____________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
Rodney Williams was charged with felony murder, armed robbery, and felony-firearm. During trial, Williams told the judge that he did not want his appointed attorney to represent him. The judge warned Williams about the dangers of self-representation and that, under the rules of evidence, he might not be able to introduce some evidence that he wanted to present. She also informed him of the charges and the maximum sentence for each charge and cautioned him that he would not be allowed to disrupt the proceedings. The judge also stated that Williams' counsel was his second appointed attorney and that he would not get another one. Williams stated that he was ready and would rather represent himself. Williams said in part that his appointed attorney had failed to question a prosecution witness. This prosecution witness, Williams said, had stated at the preliminary examination that he was only 50 percent sure that Williams was one of the perpetrators. The prosecutor responded that Williams had misrepresented the transcript. Williams asked the judge for an opportunity to examine the transcript. The judge refused and ordered Williams to state whether he was going to represent himself. Williams, after being asked twice, said "Yes, ma'am." The jury convicted Williams as charged. The trial court vacated the armed robbery charge and Williams was sentenced to the mandatory terms for felony murder and felony-firearm. The Court of Appeals majority reversed Williams' convictions in a 2-1 unpublished decision. The majority suggested that Williams might have decided to continue with his attorney if he had been allowed to read the preliminary examination transcript. As a result, the majority said, "we find that defendant's request was denied without due deliberation and without affording him the opportunity to be properly informed before making his decision..Such a cursory handling of defendant's request violated defendant's right to have the proceeding conducted so as to ensure 'that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.'" The dissenting judge found that the trial court had fully complied with the necessary case law and had properly found that Williams had knowingly waived his right to counsel. The prosecution appeals.
Top of Page
|
