Legal Opinion
State v. Samuel
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided February 28, 2018No. Appellate Case 2015-002401; Opinion 27768PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JUSTICE HEARN :
*489 **599 In this case we clarify the proper scope of a circuit judge's inquiry under Faretta 1 when a criminal defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives his right to counsel and requests to proceed pro se . Prior to his trial for murder, Lamont Antonio Samuel moved to represent himself under Faretta . The circuit judge denied his motion, finding Samuel was lying about whether he had or would have access to legal coaching in preparation for trial. The court of appeals affirmed. State v. Samuel , 414 S.C. 206 , 777 S.E.2d 398 (Ct. App. 2015). We now reverse.
FACTUAL/…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hines v. StateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2021
- State v. DialSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2020
- State v. Maurice Trimaine SingletonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2026
- State v. SingletonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2020