United States v. Royland Rice

MEMORANDUM

Prior to trial, Royland Rice (“Rice”) waived his right to counsel pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and pled guilty to 'bank robbery and violating the terms of supervised release. Rice contends that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent because he did not understand the nature of the charges or the penalties he faced. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm because the transcript of the Faretta hearing and other evidence in the record indicate that Rice adequately understood the charge and maximum penalty.

Just as an accused who faces incarceration has the right to counsel at all critical stages of the criminal justice process, Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170 , 106 S.Ct. 477 , 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), a criminal defendant is entitled to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 807 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . Such a waiver must be knowing and intelligent; “that is, a criminal defendant must be aware of the nature of the charges against him, the possible penalties, and the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation .... ” United States v. Balough, 820 F.2d…