City of Missoula v. Fogarty, 309 P.3d 10

Fogarty faced four misdemeanor cases in Missoula Municipal Court, all tried in bench trials on the same day with Fogarty representing herself.
Public Defender Office was involved, but Fogarty repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction and expressed a desire to proceed pro se, leading to multiple substitutions of counsel.
Nov. 7, 2011 preliminary hearing occurred without Kauffman, Fogarty stated she wanted to represent herself; judge approved, and a notice of trial date was set for Dec. 16, with Fogarty receiving a copy of the notice.
By Dec. 22, 2011, Fogarty’s trials proceeded with Fogarty pro se, after which she pled guilty to the insurance violation and was convicted on the other four charges, with various jail terms and suspensions imposed.
The District Court affirmed most judgments but vacated one disorderly conduct conviction on double jeopardy grounds, and Fogarty appealed claiming denial of counsel.
The majority concluded the Municipal Court did not violate Fogarty’s rights and that Fogarty’s decision to proceed pro se was within the court’s discretionary authority given the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fogarty validly waived the right to counsel	Fogarty contends waiver was not knowing or intelligent due to mental health concerns and equivocal conduct.	Court properly evaluated waiver under Faretta and Langford, and Fogarty’s conduct and history supported a valid waiver.	Waiver found valid; court did not err
Whether inadequate inquiry or absent counsel at key hearings violated Fogarty's rights	Failure to have Kauffman present or issue a written withdrawal order deprived Fogarty of meaningful counsel.	No deprivation; Fogarty’s pro se status was acknowledged and permitted; withdrawals followed statutory procedures.	No reversible error; proceedings within discretion
Whether Fogarty’s alleged mental health issues undermine validity of waiver	Mental health concerns should have required a more rigorous inquiry or evaluation before waiving counsel.	Record showed sufficient ability to understand penalties and proceed; no need for competency evaluation given records.	Waiver sustained; mental health did not render waiver invalid

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires awareness of dangers; no rigid colloquy required)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (waiver of right to counsel must be intentional and informed)
Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1962) (waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
State v. Langford, 882 P.2d 490 (Mont. 1994) (unequivocal request required for self-representation)
State v. Insua, 84 P.3d 11 (Mont. 2004) (Faretta standard applied to ensure awareness of dangers of self-representation)
State v. Dethman, 245 P.3d 30 (Mont. 2010) (adequate initial inquiry when defendant raises ineffective assistance)
State v. Craig, 906 P.2d 683 (Mont. 1995) (persistent, unreasonable demand for dismissal of counsel treated as waiver)
Hantzis, 625 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2010) (comparative standard for waiver involving self-representation and competence)
Hass, 265 P.3d 1221 (Mont. 2011) (withdrawal of counsel without proper waiver violated right to counsel)
Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2009) (totality of record may illuminate waiver of counsel)