People v. Kammeraad, 307 Mich. App. 98

Background

Defendant Dylan Kammeraad was charged with aggravated assault, three counts of resisting/obstructing a police officer, two counts of assaulting a prison employee, refusing biometric (fingerprint) collection, and was later held in contempt. A jury convicted him on all counts; one resisting conviction was later conceded unsupported and vacated on appeal.
Throughout proceedings defendant repeatedly disrupted hearings, refused to acknowledge counsel or the court, refused to participate or cooperate with appointed counsel, demanded dismissal, appeared half-clothed and in a wheelchair although ambulatory, and frequently declared he “took exception” to the process.
The trial court appointed counsel over counsel’s motion to withdraw after counsel reported defendant’s persistent refusal to cooperate; counsel attempted contact during trial but declined to cross-examine or present a defense after failing to communicate with defendant.
The court excluded defendant from the courtroom during trial after warnings because of his disruptive conduct and permitted him to view proceedings by video; defendant remained largely absent from the courtroom trial proceedings.
On appeal defendant argued loss of his right to be present, denial of effective assistance of counsel, failure to order competency evaluation, double jeopardy and insufficiency, and improper contempt sanction; the Court of Appeals affirmed all but vacated one resisting conviction conceded unsupported by the prosecution.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to be present at trial	Court may exclude a defendant who is disorderly/disruptive after warning	Exclusion violated statutory and constitutional right to be present	Court: exclusion valid—defendant forfeited right by persistent disruptive conduct (Illinois v. Allen applied)
Right to counsel / effective assistance	Even if counsel did little, defendant forfeited right to counsel by refusing counsel and self-representation	Counsel’s failure to test prosecution’s case violated Sixth Amendment; Cronic prejudice/tree of presumed prejudice applies	Court: no reversal—defendant forfeited right to counsel/self-representation; Cronic not implicated because forfeiture removed entitlement to counsel
Competency to stand trial	Court had discretion; no bona fide doubt requiring evaluation	Defendant’s odd statements/behavior required competency exam	Court: no abuse of discretion—trial judge reasonably found behavior purposeful, defendant presumed competent
Double jeopardy / sufficiency of resisting counts	Prosecutor: offenses distinct; biometric and resisting have different elements	Defendant: overlapping counts and refusal-to-give-name insufficient to support resisting counts	Court: Blockburger controls; no double jeopardy; two resisting convictions supported, one conceded insufficient and vacated
Contempt and allocution / First Amendment	Court: contempt appropriate for disorderly conduct; allocution opportunity was offered	Defendant: contempt violated free speech and right to allocution	Court: contempt not an abuse; First Amendment not implicated for disruptive courtroom behavior; allocution requirement satisfied but defendant misused it

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may lose right to be present if disruptive after warning)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumption of prejudice where counsel is entirely absent or fails to subject prosecution to meaningful testing)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation and limits on imposing counsel on an unwilling defendant)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (states may require counsel for defendants competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct defense)
People v. Carbin, 463 Mich. 590 (2001) (standard for ineffective assistance claims and Strickland framework)
People v. Russell, 471 Mich. 182 (2004) (requirements for waiving counsel and self-representation under Michigan law)