/FTUE^ IN CLERKS OEPICE This opinion was fCied for record atJ<^on ;ffCQE OF ltEISHB«eraN iusanL. Carlson Supreme Court Clerk AAf.Kwi^ CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 95528-0 Respondent, En Banc MICHAEL 1. BURNS, Petitioner. Filed APR 1 8 2019 JOHNSON,J.—This case involves, first, whether Michael Bums was improperly denied his right to waive counsel and represent himself at trial and, second, whether he may assert a violation of the confrontation clause for the first time on appeal. The trial court judge denied Bums's request to proceed pro se based on a lack of understanding ofthe nature of the charges against him where he indicated that the criminal charges did not pertain to him and that he had not entered into a contract such that the State could bring charges against him. Burns claimed on appeal that his right to confrontation was violated when statements of his victim came in as evidence through testimony of her neighbor and the State V. Burns, No. 95528-0 responding police officer, although she herself did not testify. Bums did not object to the testimony on confrontation grounds at trial. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court Judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Burns's request to proceed pro se and that Burns waived his right to assert a confrontation violation when he did not object at trial. We affirm the Court of Appeals. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The State charged Michael Burns with assault in the second degree— domestic violence, and felony violation of a no contact order—domestic violence, for strangling Christina Jackson while a no contact order was in effect.' Clerk's Papers(CP)at 25-27. At one of his first court appearances. Bums said,"I just want to request new legal representation" because "I haven't been represented the way I see fit." Verbatim Report ofProceedings(VRP)(Dec. 10, 2015) at 17. The trial court informed Bums that he was not entitled to a public defender of his choosing. After numerous requests to proceed pro se, the court held a hearing on January 13, 2016 regarding Burns's request to represent himself. At the hearing Bums stated. 'Bums also had two other felony cases with multiple charges pending against him that the court referenced at his hearing on self-representation. State V. Burns, No. 95528-0 I would like to go pro se for reasons other than just becoming aware of certain things. And furthermore, I just, you know,I'd rather handle my own business considering certain matters especially when I've gotten lied to, threatened, and coerced into certain things that I wasn't aware of at the time but I am aware of now. So I would like to go pro se because of those certain aspects of things so. VRP (Jan. 13, 2016) at 2-3. The court then began to explain the nature ofthe charges in all three ofBums's pending cases. Interrupting this explanation. Bums stated,"These matters being spoken of do not pertain to me, okay?" and the following exchange occurred: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals