56 A.3d 1053
Del.2012Background
- Williams was convicted of Escape After Conviction under 11 Del. C. § 1253 for leaving the Plummer Center while serving a Level IV Robbery sentence.
- On Nov. 4, 2010, Williams requested a medical pass to leave the facility; he did not return and was placed on escape status, later apprehended in Elkton, Maryland eight days later.
- Prior to trial, Williams sought to offer a 'choice of evils' justification defense under 11 Del. C. § 463; the State moved to preclude the defense and Williams had not made a pretrial offer of proof.
- During trial, after a lunch recess, the court denied Williams’ justification defense and instructed him not to testify about reasons for leaving the Plummer Center.
- Defense counsel requested Williams be allowed to proceed pro se; the trial judge denied the request with no colloquy or analysis, and the trial continued with Williams ultimately testifying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of self‑representation requires a colloquy and reasons | Williams argues the denial without colloquy violated Faretta rights. | Williams contends the court properly managed proceedings and defense representation. | Reversed; denial without colloquy violated self‑representation rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self‑representation requires explicit waiver and admonitions)
- Christopher v. State, 930 A.2d 894 (Del. 2007) (insufficient colloquy when mid-trial request to proceed pro se)
- Hartman v. State, 918 A.2d 1138 (Del. 2007) (Del. self-representation analysis and related authorities)
- Zuppo v. State, 807 A.2d 545 (Del. 2002) (limits on trial interruptions and right to counsel)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (right to self-representation cannot be harmlessly denied; structural right)