United States v. Terrance Coles, Jr.
695 F.3d 559
6th Cir.2012Background
- Coles was convicted after a jury trial of seven counts aiding and abetting unlicensed firearm dealing, eight counts felon in possession of a firearm, one count aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, one count carrying and using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and one count conspiracy, resulting in a 180-month sentence.
- Evidence showed a conspiracy to traffic firearms from the United States into Canada at the Detroit-Windsor border, with Coles arranging multiple transfers and planning up to 20 firearms in exchange for Ecstasy; he was arrested by ATF in Toronto when attempting the exchange.
- Coles repeatedly dissented from appointed counsel, causing delays and multiple withdrawals and replacements of counsel through 2009, including Mannarino, Mullkoff, and Satawa, with the court warning about possible self-representation if relations deteriorated.
- On December 8, 2009, Satawa sought to withdraw; the court warned Coles that if he and new counsel could not work, he would likely need to represent himself, a position the court deemed very bad given his access to competent counsel.
- The court appointed Ray Richards as stand-by counsel and later acknowledged Coles again wanted new counsel, ultimately allowing Coles to proceed to trial pro se with Richards available for advice.
- The district court allowed trial to proceed with Coles representing himself but with Richards as stand-by counsel; Coles was later convicted and appealed the waiver of counsel and related procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Coles' waiver of counsel valid under the record? | Coles argues the McDowell model inquiry was not followed exactly. | Coles effectively waived counsel by conduct and warnings; not required to follow exact model inquiry. | Waiver valid; no reversible error. |
| Did the district court properly apply McDowell supervisory guidance? | Failure to use the exact Bench Book model inquiry violated McDowell. | Exact model inquiry not required when defendant clearly waives rights; warnings sufficed. | No reversible error; implicit inquiry and warnings adequate. |
| Did the court adequately inform Coles about self-representation and ensure fair proceedings? | Defendant should have clearer advisement consistent with model inquiry. | Court repeatedly warned Coles about self-representation and he chose to proceed with stand-by counsel. | Fair proceedings; warnings and stand-by counsel adequate. |
| Does Coles’ pro se appeal on other trial issues have merit? | Challenged continuance denial and entrapment instruction. | Arguments lack merit after full review of trial record. | No merit found; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation; foundational rule)
- United States v. Green, 388 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2004) (waiver by conduct; court immigration of rights)
- United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1988) (fairness in waiver of counsel)
- King v. Bobby, 433 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2006) (efforts to obtain counsel and self-representation considerations)
- United States v. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1987) (supervisory guidance for waiving counsel; model inquiry)