State v. Patton, 528 P.3d 1249

Patton was charged with Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and Class B misdemeanor theft after allegedly picking up his minor son’s Adderall without authorization.
At an initial February 2021 hearing Patton declined appointment of counsel and told the court he would represent himself; the court gave a brief warning and recited the charges and maximum penalties but did not perform a full Frampton colloquy.
The bench trial proceeded via videoconference; Patton joined late, admitted to picking up the prescription, did not cross-examine witnesses or lodge objections, and the court convicted him of possession and dismissed the theft count.
The court sentenced Patton to a stayed jail term with 24 months private supervision and a fine (partially suspended).
After trial Patton filed pleadings asserting he suffers from “chemo brain,” sought counsel on appeal, and the trial court later appointed appellate counsel and found him indigent.
On appeal Patton argued his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent; the Court of Appeals vacated his possession conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding the colloquy and record insufficient to support waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s waiver colloquy was adequate to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel	The brief on-the-record exchange and advisement of charges/penalties were sufficient	The court failed to conduct the Frampton colloquy and did not probe Patton’s legal knowledge, experience, or cognitive limitations	Colloquy was perfunctory and insufficient under Frampton; waiver not knowingly and intelligently made
Whether other record evidence independently demonstrates a valid waiver absent a full colloquy	The record (Patton’s statements declining counsel) shows awareness and thus a valid waiver	There is no record evidence of legal knowledge, pro se actions, or understanding; Patton’s chemo brain and his failure to act before trial undermine any implied waiver	No; the record lacks the indicia (experience, filings, understanding) present in Frampton/Bozarth, so waiver cannot be upheld on that basis

State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) (trial courts should conduct a comprehensive on-the-record colloquy to ensure waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent)
State v. Pedockie, 137 P.3d 716 (Utah 2006) (reviewing courts rarely find valid waiver absent a Frampton-style colloquy; doubts resolved for defendant)
State v. Petty, 38 P.3d 998 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (absence of a complete colloquy can render waiver invalid despite some limited questioning)
State v. Bozarth, 501 P.3d 116 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (record may nonetheless show a valid waiver where defendant’s filings, courtroom conduct, and court explanations demonstrate understanding)
State v. Smith, 414 P.3d 1092 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (colloquy insufficient where defendant failed to understand or engage; doubts resolved in favor of defendant)
State v. Hassan, 108 P.3d 695 (Utah 2004) (waiver validity depends on particular facts and circumstances)
State v. Bakalov, 979 P.2d 79 (Utah 1999) (trial court should carefully evaluate accused’s background and consider appointing standby counsel)
State v. McDonald, 922 P.2d 776 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (review of waiver involves mixed question of fact and law)