State of Washington v. Kevin Lee Gallo, 33934-3

Kevin Lee Gallo was arrested on Washington State Penitentiary property and charged with possession of methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, and second-degree criminal trespass; a later bail-jumping charge was added after missed appearances.
Gallo initially had appointed counsel but repeatedly sought to represent himself; two different judges conducted extended colloquies and twice found his waiver of counsel knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, appointing standby counsel.
Gallo missed multiple court dates (at least two), one of which resulted in a bench warrant and later incarceration in Benton County; the trial court then revoked his self-representation and reappointed counsel without a warning-based remedial process.
At trial represented by counsel, Gallo was convicted of possession and paraphernalia charges (trespass acquitted); bail-jumping was dismissed at close of the State’s evidence. He received time served and community custody; LFOs were limited.
On appeal Gallo challenged the revocation of his pro se status and one condition of community custody; the court of appeals found the waiver colloquies were adequate but concluded the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in revoking pro se status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court permissibly revoked Gallo's right to self-representation	The State: Gallo equivocated, was disruptive, failed to appear for hearings, and thus the court acted within discretion to revoke pro se status	Gallo: Waiver was knowing and voluntary; reappointment of counsel rested on an improper standard (need for better representation), not on sanctioned grounds like equivocation or serious disruption	Court: Revocation was an abuse of discretion because the record did not show equivocation, voluntariness problem, or obstructive misconduct; applied wrong legal standard—reversed convictions and remanded for new trial
Challenge to a community custody condition	State defended the condition imposed at sentencing	Gallo challenged one condition of community custody	Court did not decide because reversal on the self-representation claim required retrial; condition can be raised later if needed

State v. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d 496 (2010) (limits on when a court may deny or revoke self-representation)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
City of Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wn.2d 203 (1984) (colloquy on the record preferred to ensure intelligent waiver)
State v. Floyd, 178 Wn. App. 402 (2013) (upholding revocation where record showed deliberate obstruction and warnings)
In re Pers. Restraint of Rhome, 172 Wn.2d 654 (2011) (standard of review for self-representation rulings)