U.S. v. Hamilton

In prosecution on drug distribution charges, record demonstrated that defendant had validly waived his trial counsel during sentencing phase of trial under circumstances where: (1) Dist. Ct. had previously granted defendant’s motion for new counsel after original trial counsel had filed post-trial motion; (2) week before original date of post-trial-motion/sentencing hearing, substitute counsel obtained competency evaluation for defendant that ultimately resulted in finding that defendant was competent in spite of claims that defendant had exhibited bizarre behavior; (3) on day of rescheduled post-trial motion/sentencing hearing, Dist. Ct. granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se, after defendant had claimed that he was not satisfied with substitute counsel’s efforts at obtaining discovery; and (4) on date of re-scheduled post-trial/sentencing hearing, Dist. Ct. denied defendant’s request for appointed counsel. Dist. Ct. was not required to expressly ask defendant whether he understood charges or penalties during instant post-trial waiver of defendant’s right to counsel, and record otherwise showed that defendant understood nature of charges, as well as potential penalties. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s late request for appointed counsel was strategic and based on motive to delay proceedings.