Defendant appealed his sentence for kidnapping and committing violence against a department of corrections employee. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court’s determination that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Defendant also argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence to run consecutively with his prior sentences, where the state had deferred to a prior plea agreement for concurrent sentencing but declined to make a recommendation about sentencing in the present case.
Where the record showed that defendant, after being granted his motion to proceed pro se, had submitted and argued numerous motions, submitted jury selection questions, requested subpoenas, and otherwise demonstrated his familiarity with trial procedures, there was no evidence to demonstrate that defendant’s decision to represent himself was unintelligent after he was afforded a proper Faretta hearing, and there was no abuse of sentencing discretion regardless of any recommendation made by the state.
Breckenridge, J., concurring: “The resolution of Mr. Teter’s claim is straightforward under United States Supreme Court precedent, and it does not require the Court, impermissibly, to presume the content of the prior hearings of which the circuit court took judicial notice or reach the issue related to transcripts of Mr. Teter’s prior hearings.”
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Teter (MLW No. 79840/Case No. SC99464 – 36 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Joyce, J. (James Egan, Columbia, for appellant) (Daniel N. McPherson, Jefferson City, for respondent)