Royal
United States v. Royal
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Dana Tyrone Royal (“Royal”) appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and for depositing counterfeit securities pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 513. Royal contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand for a new trial.
On January 23, 2002, Royal filed a motion to proceed pro se. The parties agree that the district court improperly denied this motion by failing to engage in a colloquy in conformity with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
On October 27, 1998, the first day of trial, Royal renewed his request to proceed pro se and simultaneously sought a continuance to prepare for trial. The district court granted Royal’s request to appear pro se, but denied his request for a continuance. Neither party contests that the district court engaged in a proper Faretta colloquy before granting Royal’s renewed motion for self-representation. The issue is whether denial of the continuance effectively abrogated Royal’s qualified Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.