State v. McLemore, 230 Ariz. 571

McLemore was convicted of six felonies stemming from an armed jewelry-store robbery in Arizona.
The trial court did not conduct a Faretta self-representation hearing despite McLemore's timely pro se request.
McLemore filed a timely pro se Notice to Proceed as Pro Per (Rule 6) about one year before trial, seeking advisory and expert assistance.
Pretrial proceedings did not address or rule on the Faretta motion; the case was reassigned to multiple judges before trial.
The court later found McLemore abandoned the Faretta motion based on the totality of circumstances, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
The opinion also discusses the standards for waivers of counsel and the protection duties of the trial court in Faretta proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Faretta hearing conduct and error	State: failure to hold hearing is error but not reversible	McLemore: failure violated his rights and could be reversible	Abandonment defeated reversible error; convictions affirmed
Abandonment of the Faretta motion	State: defendant effectively abandoned by not pursuing motion	McLemore: no explicit withdrawal; motion remained pending	Totality of circumstances shows abandonment; no per se rule; motion deemed abandoned
Waiver of counsel and self-representation standards	State: standard requires competent waiver and awareness of risks	McLemore: entitlement to proper colloquy and waiver; right preserved	Court must determine intelligent, knowing, voluntary waiver; here, abandonment doctrine applied; no reversal required on waiver grounds

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires intelligent waiver and court colloquy)
People v. Kenner, 223 Cal.App.3d 56 (Cal. App. 1990) (abandonment based on opportunity to remind court of pending motion; per se rule rejected)
State v. Gunches, 225 Ariz. 22 (Ariz. 2010) (waiver/abuse of discretion standard; factors for self-representation)
State v. Binder, 170 Ariz. 519 (Ariz. 1992) (abuse of discretion in denial of right to self-representation)
Martin v. State, 102 Ariz. 142 (Ariz. 1967) (equal stature of rights; caution in recognizing self-representation waiver)
Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314 (Ariz. 1994) (If timely, request ordinarily should be granted)
Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431 (Ariz. 2003) (timely unequivocal request to proceed pro se requires grant after colloquy)
De Nistor, 143 Ariz. 407 (Ariz. 1985) (considerations for competence to waive and orderly proceedings)
Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1966) (requirement that defendant be competent to waive and court must determine waiver)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (standby counsel participation does not invalidate waiver; implication of waiver after grant)
Tarver/United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (structural vs. non-structural error concepts in waiver)