Self-Representation Generally
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
State v. Jones, No. W2015-02210-SC-DDT-DD, 568 S.W.3d 101, 124 (Tenn. 2019).
The standard of review for a defendant’s exercise of the right of self-representation and the concurrent waiver of the right to counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1, 29 (Tenn. 2010). Our review is de novo with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s factual findings. Id. at 29-30. “An error in denying the exercise of the right to self-representation is a structural constitutional error not amenable to harmless error review and requires automatic reversal when it occurs.” Id. (citing State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008) ).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeal
State v. Allen, No. E2022-00437-CCA-R3-CD, p. 32 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 12, 2023).
“The determination of whether a defendant has exercised his or her right of self- representation and has concurrently waived his or her right to counsel is a mixed question of law and fact.” Hester, 324 S.W.3d at 29 (Tenn. 2010) (citations omitted). Accordingly, on appeal, we apply a de novo standard of review, granting the trial court the presumption that its findings of fact are correct. Id. at 29-30 (citing State v. Holmes, 302 S.W.3d 831, 837 (Tenn. 2010)). An error in denying the right to exercise self-representation is a structural constitutional error that is not subject to harmless error review and requires automatic reversal. Id. at 30 (citing State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008)).
State v. Appelt, No. E2020-01575-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
“The determination of whether a defendant has exercised his or her right of self- representation and has concurrently waived his or her right to counsel is a mixed question of law and fact.” Hester, 324 S.W.3d at 29. This court reviews mixed questions of law and fact de novo with a presumption that the trial court’s findings of fact are correct. Id. at 29-30. Any error in denying a defendant of the right to counsel is a structural constitutional error requiring automatic reversal. State v. Frausto, 463 S.W.3d 469, 484 (Tenn. 2015).
