People v. Albea, 95 N.E.3d 1220

Defendant Thomas T. Albea, Jr. was indicted for first-degree murder and related charges after a 3-year-old died from severe internal injuries; defendant gave varying statements admitting blows to the child.
Initially represented by retained counsel, defendant later had counsel withdraw and the public defender (Gillian Gosch) was appointed; trial was set for late February 2015.
Beginning February 5, 2015, defendant repeatedly and unequivocally told the court he wanted to represent himself (pro se). The court warned him it was a bad idea and questioned his education and abilities.
The court repeatedly denied or discouraged self-representation based on defendant’s age, education (GED), lack of legal/medical expertise, and perceived inability to preserve the record, without conducting the full Rule 401(a) admonishments to determine a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver of counsel.
Defendant waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial; he was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to 33 years, and appealed arguing the court plainly erred by denying his request to proceed pro se.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying defendant's unequivocal request to proceed pro se	Court properly exercised discretion to protect defendant's right to a fair trial, given his lack of education, experience, and that proceedings were advanced	Court denied right to self-representation without Rule 401(a) admonishments; defendant’s requests were clear, unequivocal, and timely	Reversed: court abused discretion by focusing on wisdom/ability rather than conducting Rule 401(a) inquiry; error was clear and structural plain error requiring a new trial
Whether defendant’s request was untimely so denial was permissible	Request came after meaningful proceedings, so court could deny as untimely (citing Burton)	Request was made ~3 weeks before trial, after only status/discovery hearings; not untimely and court did not find it untimely	Denial not justified on timeliness grounds — no meaningful proceedings had occurred that would justify refusing waiver

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes constitutional right to self-representation)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (discusses limits on standby counsel when defendant proceeds pro se)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (distinguishes structural error from trial error)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (framework for structural error analysis)
Burton, 184 Ill. 2d 1 (timeliness of request to waive counsel considered where made after guilty plea)
Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44 (waiver of counsel must be clear, unequivocal; courts must accept knowing, intelligent waivers)
Lego, 168 Ill. 2d 561 (defendant need not possess lawyer-level skill to competently waive counsel)
Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (forfeiture principles for unpreserved claims on appeal)