McDaniel v. State, 327 Ga. App. 673

Defendant Danny McDaniel was indicted for residential mortgage fraud and theft by taking after an arrest in Sept. 2010 and remained in jail pretrial.
On the day of arraignment (May 24, 2011) McDaniel filed a written motion to proceed pro se and sought Brady material and access to a law library; he asserted prior law-clerk experience and past self-representation.
Multiple status conferences occurred (June 28, July 19, Aug. 2); the court and prosecutor discussed charges, maximum penalties, recidivist exposure, and intended to address Faretta warnings at a later hearing, but the court did not fully admonish McDaniel about the dangers of self-representation on the record.
On Sept. 19, 2011 (trial day) McDaniel said he was unprepared, asked for an investigator and for counsel; the court denied the investigator and refused a continuance, calling his request a delay tactic and proceeded to trial.
McDaniel represented himself at trial with limited assistance from a public defender summoned at the last minute; his performance showed trial unpreparedness (failure to make foundational objections, weak presentation, an incriminating admission admitted into evidence).
The trial court later issued a written order denying a new trial and stating McDaniel knowingly waived counsel; the appellate court reviewed whether the waiver was valid and whether the denial of continuance was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McDaniel)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether McDaniel knowingly and intelligently waived Sixth Amendment right to counsel	Waiver invalid because court never fully advised him on the dangers of self‑representation and record lacks an adequate Faretta admonition	Court had warned McDaniel repeatedly; written order and hearings show he knowingly waived and understood risks, charges, penalties, and recidivist exposure	Reversed — waiver not sufficiently established on the record; court failed to ensure McDaniel was aware of dangers of pro se representation
Whether denial of continuance to obtain counsel was an abuse of discretion	Denial was erroneous because McDaniel was unprepared, jailed, lacked investigator, and only sought counsel when trial approached	Denial proper as tactic to delay; court had given multiple chances and access to resources	Moot (because reversal on Faretta issue requires retrial); original denial not reached on merits

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to represent self but must knowingly and intelligently waive counsel after being warned of dangers)
Clarke v. Zant, 247 Ga. 194 (1981) (Georgia requires trial court record reflect defendant was made aware of right to counsel and dangers of self‑representation)
Prater v. State, 220 Ga. App. 506 (1996) (factors useful to assess validity of waiver, though not all questions required on record)
Wayne v. State, 269 Ga. 36 (1998) (record need only show defendant was made aware of dangers and made a knowing waiver)
Middleton v. State, 254 Ga. App. 648 (2002) (conclusory statements by the court insufficient to prove a knowing waiver)
Humphries v. State, 255 Ga. App. 349 (2002) (presence or limited participation of counsel for a pro se defendant does not automatically render Faretta error harmless)