Court clarifies advisement necessary for waiver of right to counsel
In Hooks v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed Hooks’ drug convictions and habitual offender adjudication, finding that he had not received an adequate advisement of the risks of self representation. For more than thirty years, it has been the rule that a defendant must be “be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ Feretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).
Here, while Hooks was advised by the Justice Court that self representation was foolish, and that he would not get special treatment or library access, the District Court did little more than inquire as to whether Hooks had discussed his decision with standby counsel. The District Court made no findings of a knowing, voluntary or intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and the record as a whole did not establish such an informed waiver.
