Page:Shabazz v. State.pdf/3

 explained that he was unhappy with the standard motion to suppress filed by counsel. The following colloquy between the court and Shabazz occurred:
 * Let me ask you something real quick to cut to the point—cut to the chase. Do you wish to represent yourself?

The court then explained to Shabazz that he was represented by counsel, who had filed motions on his behalf, and the court would not permit pro se motions that competed against those of counsel. The court then informed Shabazz that he could file his own motions only if he represented himself. Shabazz responded with more protests about the effectiveness of his appointed counsel. The court responded that it would not "micromanage" the public defender but told Shabazz that he could represent himself if he did not like the representation afforded by appointed counsel. Shabazz asked the court to appoint him a different attorney. The court denied the request. When Shabazz continued to argue that his counsel was clearly ineffective, the court responded:
 * No, sir.
 * I’ll say it one more time, and that’s the last time I’m going to say it, I will let you represent yourself. You have that constitutional right. I am not going to micromanage the way attorneys represent their clients.

At this point in the proceeding, Shabazz’s appointed counsel handed to him the discovery he had received from the State and the motions that had been filed by counsel on his behalf. The following colloquy between the court and Shabazz occurred:
 * Well, yes, sir, I would like to represent myself.
 * And I’m going to let you represent yourself, but I’m going to just give you one little spiel that I tell people that want to represent themselves. You know, you haven’t been trained in the law. Do you have a college degree?