People v. Ratliff

This case presents question as to whether trial court committed plain error in failing to fully comply with Rule 401(a)’s admonitions to give to defendant prior to accepting his request to represent himself. Record showed that trial court did not advise defendant at hearing on his motion to represent himself as to nature of charged offense, possible sentencing range and his ability to seek appointment of counsel if he was indigent. Appellate Court, in finding that instant non-compliance with Rule 401(a) was harmless, observed that: (1) trial court had informed defendant of relevant sentencing range for charged offense less than three months prior to entry of defendant’s guilty plea; (2) record demonstrated through defendant’s motions that defendant was aware of nature of charged offense; (3) defendant was aware of appointment of counsel process, where he had exercised his right to appointment of counsel during post-trial proceedings; and (4) prior to accepting defendant’s counsel waiver, trial court questioned defendant about his education and prior extensive involvement in legal system, as well as admonished him regarding disadvantages of self-representation. (Dissent filed.)