State v. Horrocks
State v. Horrocks, 2025 UT App 157 (Harris, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- Defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel by his conduct because the trial court never warned Defendant that continuing specific unacceptable conduct (such as failing to obtain private counsel by a certain date) would be treated as an implied request to proceed pro se.
- The partial Frampton colloquy conducted by the trial court was insufficient to deem Defendant’s waiver knowing and voluntary because the colloquy failed to advise Defendant that he would be far better defended by a trained lawyer and that it would be unwise for him to proceed pro se.
- Examination of the entire record in the absence of a proper Frampton colloquy did not support that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.