right to withdraw waiver in Alabama

2001The record in this case does not indicate that the trial court ever advised the appellant about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and that he had the right to withdraw his waiver of the right to counsel at any time during the proceedings, as required by Rule 6.1(b), Ala.R.Crim.P.

2001The record in this case does not indicate that the trial court ever advised the appellant about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and that he had the right to withdraw his waiver of the right to counsel at any time during the proceedings, as required by Rule 6.1(b), Ala.R.Crim.P.

2009We continued, “precedent dictates that, even withdrawing her waiver for counsel at the eleventh hour, [Gweneth] was entitled to have counsel represent her at trial.” Powers I, 985 So.2d at 497 , citing Ex parte King, 797 So.2d 1191 (Ala.2001). *768 “[0]nce [Gweneth] withdrew her waiver of counsel, she was entitled to have an attorney to represent her from that point forward.

2007The Alabama Supreme Court addressed the issue of the efficacy of a defendant's attempt to withdraw a waiver of counsel immediately before trial in Ex parte King , 797 So.2d 1191 (Ala. 2001).

2014Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded to afford Hairgrove a new trial.” 680 So.2d at 947 .

2009We continued, “precedent dictates that, even withdrawing her waiver for counsel at the eleventh hour, [Gweneth] was entitled to have counsel represent her at trial.” Powers I, 985 So.2d at 497 , citing Ex parte King, 797 So.2d 1191 (Ala.2001). *768 “[0]nce [Gweneth] withdrew her waiver of counsel, she was entitled to have an attorney to represent her from that point forward.

2009P., provides that ‘[a] defendant may withdraw a waiver of the right to counsel at any time but will not be entitled to repeat any proceeding previously held or waived solely on the grounds of the subsequent appointment or retention of counsel.’ The committee comments to Rule 6.1(c) say the rule allows a defendant to withdraw waiver of counsel ‘at any time,’ and that the right to withdraw the waiver is ‘unlimited.’ The rule does not include exceptions for cases in which the waiver of counsel appears to be withdrawn for dilatory or contumacious purposes.” Powers I, 985 So.2d at 496 .

2003Although the waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing and voluntary in order to be valid, see Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , the Sixth Amendment "`does not grant the defendant license to play a cat and mouse game with the court, or by ruse or stratagem fraudulently seek to have the trial judge placed in a position where, in moving along the business of the court, the judge appears to be arbitrarily depriving the defendant of counsel.'" Hughes, supra, 191 F.3d at 1323 , quoting United States v. Allen, 895 F.2d 1577, 1578 (10th Cir.1990).

2003Although the waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing and voluntary in order to be valid, see Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , the Sixth Amendment "`does not grant the defendant license to play a cat and mouse game with the court, or by ruse or stratagem fraudulently seek to have the trial judge placed in a position where, in moving along the business of the court, the judge appears to be arbitrarily depriving the defendant of counsel.'" Hughes, supra, 191 F.3d at 1323 , quoting United States v. Allen, 895 F.2d 1577, 1578 (10th Cir.1990).

2001Strickland v. State , 280 Ala. 31 , 189 So.2d 771 (1965)." The trial court deprived the defendant of his right to counsel as defined by Rule 6.1 and guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions respectively.

2001Strickland v. State , 280 Ala. 31 , 189 So.2d 771 (1965)." The trial court deprived the defendant of his right to counsel as defined by Rule 6.1 and guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions respectively.

1987This Court consented to answer the following questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 784 F.2d 1531 : (1) Is an insurance provision, which otherwise would obligate the insurer to defend the insured in a lawsuit based upon intentional wrongs alleged to have been committed by the insured, void as against the public policy of the state of Alabama? (2) Does an insurer, who undertakes to defend an insured without reserving the right to withdraw its defense, thereby waive its right to do so?

1987In Campbell Piping Contractors, Inc. v. Hess Pipeline Co., 342 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1977), this Court adopted the general rule with respect to the right of an insurer to withdraw a defense already undertaken without a reservation of the right to question at a later time its obligation to defend under the contract: "The doctrine of estoppel is said to be founded upon principles of equity, morality and justice. 31 C.J.S.