WESTBROOK
v.
ARIZONA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Westbrook v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that when a criminal defendant wishes to waive the constitutional right to counsel and conduct a self-defense, the trial court must conduct an affirmative inquiry to determine whether the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and competent—not merely hold a hearing on the defendant's competence to stand trial. The Court vacated the Arizona Supreme Court's judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Pate v. Robinson, establishing that trial judges bear a serious responsibility to ensure any waiver of counsel protection is genuinely voluntary and informed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial, there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. “The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 465; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506. From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this “protecting duty” was fulfilled should be re-examined in light of our decision this Term in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. State, 494 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1986)…ce properly granted Muhammad’s motion to proceed pro se. Appellant urges that the judge failed to question whether Muhammad was competent to make the decision to waive counsel and to conduct his own defense. Appellant relies on Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), wherein the Court held that, despite a prior determination of competency to stand trial, an inquiry must be made into whether a defendant is competent to waive his right to counsel and conduct his own defense.…
-
Kenzie L. Bryant v. State, 373 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…3 F. 2d 1183, 1184 (9th Cir. 1970)] that he was giving up a constitutional right. Cf. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966).” (Sieling v. Eyman, Opinion page 214) The Sieling court also relied upon Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), for the proposition that where a defendant’s competency has been put in issue, the trial court must look further than to the usual “objective” criteria in determining the adequacy of the constitutional waivers…
-
McCAIN v. State, 275 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…g were wrong, convicted him. The trial judge would have erred if he had denied McCain’s right to defend himself. State v. Cappetta, Fla.1969, 216 So. 2d 749. The requirements of the Constitution were carefully respected. Westbrook v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429. Affirmed. HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1962)