98911, People v. Baez

aggravation. Buchholz informed the court that he was still in theprocess of obtaining some of the files from the attorney who was“taking over Mr. Granich’s practice,” and the case was continued toJuly 11. On that date, the parties again agreed to continue the case foradditional discovery and pretrial motions. Buchholz, who againappeared, requested September 25, indicating that he intended to beon vacation “most of September.”On September 25, 2001, defendant again appeared with Buchholz.Before other business was conducted, the court asked defendant whathe wanted done with a letter he had sent to the court. That letter doesnot appear in the record. The following discussion occurred:“THE COURT: *** I want to know if you want me to tearit up or give it to your lawyer or what?DEFENDANT: I was, I was asking the Court if I canproceed pro se?THE COURT: I thought we had this discussion before?DEFENDANT: No, we had a discussion about mereceiving a new lawyer, and that ended in a no.And then I tried to obtain my own lawyer, and we’re allfamiliar with the outcome of that, and I’d like to proceed prose.THE COURT: You certainly have the right to proceed prose, Mr. Baez, if you want to do so. I wouldn’t suggest it. Butyou certainly have the right to do so.Have you been communicating with Mr. Buchholz?”Defendant responded that he had not seen Buchholz since before thelast court date in July. Buchholz explained that he had been trappedout of the country by the events of September 11, 2001, but that heand defendant had “communicated.” The court then addresseddefendant’s request:“THE COURT: I know you talked to him. I wanted to putit on the record.Let me say this, Mr. Baez. I certainly think that it wouldbe completely unwise for you to try to represent yourself. Iread the, just the first paragraph of your letter that you sent tome.-14-