State v. Mario Souto

Citations

• 210 A.3d 409

Syllabus

The defendant, Mario Souto, appealed from a judgment of conviction on three counts—assault of a police officer, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct—following a two-day jury trial during which the defendant represented himself. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial justice's finding that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel prior to trial. Specifically, the defendant argued that the trial justice was required to conduct a separate inquiry into his indigency status before finding a valid waiver, and that the trial justice had not considered the fact that, when the defendant agreed to allow his attorney to withdraw, he had not understood that he would be required to represent himself at trial if he did not hire another attorney. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in finding that the defendant had voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel prior to trial. The Court determined that the defendant's actions—his failure to obtain counsel after being afforded multiple continuances over fourteen months—demonstrated a voluntary waiver. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial justice did not err in concluding that the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel because the defendant had been warned about the consequences of his failure to hire an attorney at multiple times throughout the proceedings. The Court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the defendant had validly waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.