State v. Benter, 2022 ND 101

Dean Benter was charged with six counts of possession of certain materials prohibited under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2-04.1 and proceeded through multiple appointed attorneys.
Five different court‑appointed attorneys were assigned; several withdrew after conflicts with Benter over strategy and his demands that attorneys file motions he wanted.
The district court repeatedly warned Benter that continued inability to work with appointed counsel would be treated as an implied waiver of the right to counsel and ultimately declined to appoint further counsel.
After the final withdrawal the court found Benter had knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel (by conduct) and ordered he proceed pro se; the court planned standby counsel but none was ultimately reassigned.
Benter represented himself at trial, was convicted on all six counts, and appealed arguing (1) his waiver of counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and (2) the court failed to assess whether he was competent to conduct his own defense under State v. Dahl.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Benter knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel	Court warnings and Benter’s repeated refusal to cooperate amounted to a functional waiver; the court properly treated his conduct as waiver	Benter contends he did not make an unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent waiver of counsel	Court affirmed: Benter’s conduct and on‑the‑record warnings supported a functional, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver
Whether the trial court erred by not questioning Benter’s competency to represent himself under Dahl	Court observed no evidence raising competency concerns and was in best position to assess competence during trial	Benter argues the court failed to question his capacity and overlooked signs he could not present his own defense	Court affirmed: record did not raise sufficient doubt about competency; no abuse in declining further inquiry or appointing counsel during trial

City of Fargo v. Rockwell, 597 N.W.2d 406 (1999 ND 125) (standard of review for alleged denial of counsel is de novo)
State v. Yost, 855 N.W.2d 829 (2014 ND 209) (right to appointed counsel is limited, not absolute)
State v. Harmon, 575 N.W.2d 635 (1997 ND 233) (court need not continually seek new counsel for a capricious defendant)
State v. Dvorak, 604 N.W.2d 445 (2000 ND 6) (two‑step inquiry for waiver: voluntariness and knowingness/intelligence)
State v. Holbach, 735 N.W.2d 862 (2007 ND 114) (conduct can be functional equivalent of an unequivocal waiver)
State v. Poitra, 578 N.W.2d 121 (1998 ND 88) (dangers and disadvantages of self‑representation must be made apparent to ensure waiver is knowing)
State v. Dahl, 776 N.W.2d 37 (2009 ND 204) (district court should assess whether a defendant competent to stand trial can competently present own defense)