State v. Rodriguez, 952 N.W.2d 233

Rolando Rodriguez was charged with gross sexual imposition, burglary, terrorizing, intentional interference with a telephone during an emergency call, and domestic violence assault based on a May 21, 2018 incident.
He had five appointed attorneys who each moved to withdraw; at a hearing the district court permitted Rodriguez to proceed pro se after a colloquy in which he insisted on self‑representation and acknowledged disadvantages.
Trial evidence included surveillance video of Rodriguez forcing entry and chasing the victim, the victim’s prior taped police statement describing sexual assault and threats, photos of injuries, a recovered knife, and a neighbor’s testimony; the victim recanted parts of her prior statement at trial.
A jury convicted Rodriguez on all counts except the interference-with-telephone count; judgment entered January 3, 2020.
On appeal Rodriguez challenged (1) the validity of his waiver of counsel, (2) sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions, and (3) the absence of a special verdict finding use of a dangerous weapon for the terrorizing charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of waiver of counsel	Waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent based on the court’s colloquy and Rodriguez’s explicit insistence on self‑representation	Rodriguez did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel	Waiver was valid; Rodriguez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel
Sufficiency of evidence	The surveillance, physical evidence, victim’s prior statement, photos, and witness testimony supported convictions beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence was insufficient to support guilty verdicts	Issue not preserved (no Rule 29 motion); court declined to review under obvious‑error standard
Special verdict for dangerous weapon	No timely objection or request for special verdict—issue waived	District court erred by not submitting a special finding that a dangerous weapon was used, as required for certain sentencing consequences	Issue not preserved and defendant did not argue obvious error on appeal; court declined to consider

City of Fargo v. Rockwell, 597 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 1999) (right to counsel standard and de novo review)
State v. Dvorak, 604 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2000) (two‑step inquiry for waiver: voluntary and knowing/intelligent)
State v. Poitra, 578 N.W.2d 121 (N.D. 1998) (waiver requires admonition about dangers/disadvantages so choice is made with eyes open)
State v. Harmon, 575 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1997) (court not required to continually appoint new counsel for a capricious/difficult defendant)
City of Fargo v. Lunday, 760 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 2009) (Rule 29 motion required to preserve sufficiency‑of‑evidence claim on appeal)
State v. Sheldon, 312 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1981) (mandatory weapon sentencing provision applies only if weapon possession is an element or jury makes a special finding)