majority">

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Michael Laroy Coleman, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information in Case No. CRF-77-31 with the crime of Attempted Robbery With a Deadly Weapon, pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 1973, § 801, in the District Court of Creek County. The defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense charged. In the second stage of the trial, the defendant was found guilty of Attempted Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony, pursuant to 21 O.S. Supp.1976, § 51, and sentenced to serve twenty-five (25) years in the custody of the State Department of Corrections.

The defendant’s sole assignment of error is that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right of self-representation. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. In a letter to the trial judge filed February 22, 1978, defendant accused his court-appointed attorney of being incompetent and in breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At a hearing held February 24, 1978, the defendant requested that his court-appointed attorney be dismissed and that other counsel be appointed. At this hearing it was revealed that the defendant had previously been represented by two other court-appointed attorneys. After hearing the defendant’s allegations of inadequate representation, the court denied the request, and the cause was tried on March 6, 1978.

The right to self-representation is one which a defendant must clearly and unequivocally assert before trial. See Felts v. State, Okl.Cr., 588 P.2d 572 (1978). In the case at bar, the defendant made no request to represent himself; therefore, he was not denied his Sixth Amendment right.

The defendant also asserts that under the circumstances the court had an affirmative duty to inform him of his right to self-representation. We are of the opinion that this assertion is without merit. Where a defendant requests to have appointed counsel dismissed and new counsel appointed, the trial court has no duty to inform him of his right to self-representation. See Felts v. State, supra.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress