State v. Coto
374 S.E.2d 181, 296 S.C. 480, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 145
Opinion
The record does not indicate, and no determination was made, that Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. State v. Bateman,_S. C__, 373 S. E. (2d) 470 (1988); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. (2d) 562 (1975); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 68 S. Ct. 316, 92 L. Ed. 309 (1948).
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Coto, 374 S.E.2d 181, 296 S.C. 480, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 145 (S.C. 1988).
374 S.E.2d 181 (State v. Coto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Cash
403 S.E.2d 632 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1991)