People v. Davis, 352 P.3d 950

Davis was charged with possession and distribution of crack cocaine after an undercover purchase; jury convicted him of both counts.
Davis exhibited signs of serious mental illness (silence, flat affect, possible schizophrenia); three competency evaluations were conducted but none deemed him incompetent under Dusky.
Davis sought to waive counsel and proceed pro se; the trial court, after Arguello colloquies and reviewing the evaluations and courtroom behavior, found his waiver was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and denied self-representation.
The court-appointed defense proceeded to trial; Davis was sentenced to one year for possession and twelve years for distribution.
The court of appeals reversed the denial of self-representation, adopting a new Edwards-based competency-to-waive standard, but affirmed the convictions on the merits; it held the possession and distribution convictions did not violate double jeopardy.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether to adopt an Edwards standard for competency to waive counsel, and (2) whether possession must merge into distribution when both rely on the same quantum of drugs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Colorado must adopt a separate Edwards competency standard for mentally ill defendants who seek to waive counsel	People: Colorado’s existing two-part Dusky/Arguello totality-of-the-circumstances test already permits courts to consider mental illness and need not be replaced	Davis: Edwards requires a higher, distinct competency inquiry before allowing pro se representation when severe mental illness may impair trial defense	Reversed court of appeals; Colorado will not adopt a new Edwards-specific standard because Dusky plus the Arguello totality test allows courts to consider mental illness adequately
Whether possession must merge into distribution (double jeopardy/merger) when both convictions rest on the same quantum of drugs	People: Evidence supported an inference that Davis retained some drugs (separate quanta), so convictions may stand separately	Davis: Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were multiple quanta; possession is a lesser-included offense and must merge into distribution	Reversed court of appeals on this point; possession conviction vacated and must merge into distribution because evidence was insufficient to prove a separate quantum beyond a reasonable doubt

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (states may insist on counsel where mental illness prevents adequate self-representation)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency-to-stand-trial standard)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (Dusky standard applied to competency to plead guilty and waive counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) ( Sixth Amendment right to self-representation )
People v. Arguello, 772 P.2d 87 (Colo. 1989) (Colorado’s two-part test for valid waiver of counsel: competence under Dusky and voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver)
People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462 (Colo. 2005) (possession is a lesser-included offense of distribution when based on the same discrete quantum of drugs; merger required)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for multiple punishments)