U.S. v. Johnson

Defendant was not entitled to new trial on bankruptcy fraud charges, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had failed to ensure that his decision to waive counsel was knowing and intelligent. While Dist. Ct. improperly failed to confirm (prior to accepting his request to waive counsel and proceed pro se) defendant’s understanding of either charges against him or severity of potential penalties that could flow from convictions on said charges, said failure did not require reversal of defendant’s convictions, where: (1) Magistrate Judge had properly admonished defendant regarding consequences of waiving counsel at defendant’s initial appearance in case; and (2) defendant had history of waiving counsel in prior criminal matters, such that defendant had sufficient understanding of risks of proceeding pro se in spite of Dist. Ct.’s truncated colloquy. Fact that defendant had only 7^th grade education and lacked formal legal training did not require different result, since defendant did not suggest that his lack of education or legal training prevented him from appreciating gravity of his waiver. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly impose 216-month sentence, even though defendant was 55 years old, where defendant did not challenge substantive nature of sentence, and where Dist. Ct. adequately addressed defendant’s argument that instant sentence constituted de facto life sentence.