People of Michigan v. David Jack Russo, 331210

Defendant David Russo was charged with aggravated stalking and malicious use of telecommunications for repeated harassing/threatening calls to his parents; forensic evaluation diagnosed bipolar disorder and other psychiatric illnesses.
After a breakdown with appointed counsel, defendant sought to discharge counsel and proceed pro se; the trial court ultimately allowed self-representation without a full waiver colloquy.
The trial court ordered a competency evaluation that found Russo competent to stand trial but did not evaluate his capacity to represent himself; counsel and the prosecutor expressed concerns about his competency for self-representation and requested further evaluation.
On August 12 and August 18, 2015, the court accepted Russo’s decision to represent himself but failed to: (1) advise him of the charges and maximum penalties at the initial waiver, (2) adequately explain risks of self-representation, (3) make an explicit finding that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, or (4) order a further competency evaluation.
Defendant represented himself at trial and was convicted; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the court substantially complied with Anderson and MCR 6.005(D) for a valid waiver of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Anderson and MCR 6.005(D) when permitting pro se waiver	Court substantially complied; waiver was made on the record	Court failed to substantially comply with rule and Anderson; waiver invalid	Reversed: court did not substantially comply and waiver was ineffective
Whether the court advised defendant of charges and maximum penalties at initial waiver	Adequate notice was provided overall before trial	Court failed to advise of charges and maximum penalty at the time of initial waiver	Reversed: court failed to advise at initial waiver as required
Whether the court explained risks and disadvantages of self-representation and made an express finding of knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver	Record showed warnings and some admonitions about rules and risks	Court’s cursory admonitions and defendant’s “Okay” were insufficient; no express finding made	Reversed: insufficient colloquy and no express finding of knowing/intelligent/voluntary waiver
Whether defendant’s competency to represent himself was adequately assessed	Forensic report found competence to stand trial, sufficient to allow waiver	Competency to stand trial differs from capacity to self-represent; court failed to evaluate or order further assessment despite concerns	Reversed: court did not assess capacity for pro se defense as required (Edwards principle applies)

People v Campbell, 316 Mich. App. 279 (discussing right to counsel when incarceration possible)
People v Anderson, 398 Mich. 361 (trial-court inquiry required before permitting self-representation)
People v Russell, 471 Mich. 182 (substantial compliance standard for waiver of counsel)
People v Williams, 470 Mich. 634 (procedural context for self-representation requests)
People v Hicks, 259 Mich. App. 518 (trial court must assess wisdom of self-representation on the record)
Indiana v Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (distinguishing competence to stand trial from capacity to self-represent)
Godinez v Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (competency standard for waiver of counsel)