Battles v. State, 263 So. 3d 1087

Battles was charged with unlawful possession of a pistol by a person barred from possessing a firearm; after a bench trial he was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender to 21 years' imprisonment.
Officers stopped Battles' vehicle on January 2, 2017; during an inventory search after towing, a pistol was found under the seat.
Battles had no ID, gave a false name and SSN, and had prior convictions (including a murder conviction alleged in the indictment).
Battles filed pro se motions and repeatedly told the court he wanted to represent himself and waive a jury; the court relieved appointed counsel and granted a written jury-waiver and a bench trial request.
At trial the court read the indictment and informed Battles of some rights, but did not advise him of the specific dangers and disadvantages of self-representation or whether he could withdraw the waiver and obtain counsel at any stage.
The court convicted Battles; on appeal he argued his Faretta waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 6.1(b).

Issue	Battles' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Battles validly waived right to counsel	Waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary; court failed to advise him of dangers/disadvantages	Battles clearly and unequivocally sought to proceed pro se and had been appointed counsel earlier	Waiver invalid: record lacks required advisement of dangers/disadvantages and other Fitzpatrick factors; reversal required
Whether court advised Battles he could withdraw waiver at any stage (Rule 6.1(b))	Court failed to inform him waiver could be withdrawn and counsel appointed/retained	State argued totality of circumstances could show Battles understood right to withdraw	Held: court did not advise and record does not show Battles was obviously aware of the right to withdraw; Rule 6.1(b) not satisfied
Whether any Faretta colloquy formality is required	Battles argued absence of an adequate colloquy rendered waiver invalid	State relied on case law that no specific script is mandated; totality controls	Held: although no fixed script required, here totality of circumstances did not show an intelligent waiver; trial court erred
Whether the error was jurisdictional and reviewable despite being raised first on appeal	Battles raised waiver on appeal for first time	State likely argued waiver could be forfeited if not raised timely	Held: deprivation of counsel without valid waiver is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time; issue not waived

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizing Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and requiring waiver be knowing and intelligent)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waiver of counsel must be intelligent and competent; totality of circumstances inquiry)
Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) (when waiver is express on the record, burden shifts to defendant to prove it was not knowing and intelligent)
Tomlin v. State, 601 So.2d 124 (Ala. 1991) (sets Fitzpatrick factors and emphasizes totality-of-the-circumstances test for Faretta waivers)
Baker v. State, 933 So.2d 406 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (discusses court's duty to ensure waiver is intelligent and records the relevant precedents and standards)
Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986) (court need not use a specific script; defendant's understanding is the ultimate test)
Coughlin v. State, 842 So.2d 30 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) (lack of counsel plus lack of knowing waiver can jurisdictionally bar prosecution)
Woodruff v. City of Pelham, 1 So.3d 157 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (failure to afford counsel at critical stages is jurisdictional and reviewable at any time)