by the Arkansas Court of Appeals

“ While counsel did provide some limited assistance to Shabazz, such assistance was not so substantial as to render harmless the improper waiver of counsel.
Shabazz contends that the violation of his right to counsel should result in a new trial. The State, on the other hand, argues that Shabazz is entitled only to a new suppression hearing. We disagree.
Our supreme court acknowledged in Young v. State, 370 Ark. 147, 257 S.W.3d 870 (2007) , that as a general rule, most trial errors, including constitutional ones, do not automatically require reversal of a criminal conviction. ”

“ 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:
The Court: 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? ”

“ While a case-by-case approach is used to determine intelligent waiver of counsel, a specific warning of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation—or a record showing that the defendant possessed such required knowledge from other sources—is required to establish the validity of a waiver. ”

“ Oh, that’s just—. That’s the only motion. Are you ready to go forward? Do you have any witnesses?
. . . .
The Court: Before we go forward, we had a long discussion earlier today, and I know I’ve seen a lot of people since then, and you made a decision—. After I questioned you, you made a decision that you think it’s in your best interest to represent yourself. Is that correct?
The Defendant: Yes, sir.
[Defense Counsel] : So—
The Court: Do you want [defense counsel] standing close in case you have questions? Do you want him to assist you?
The Defendant: If he would like—. ”

“ A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations. ”

“ State, 356 Ark. 345, 151 S.W.3d 770 (2004) (suppression hearing not included in the record) ; Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 1, 791 S.W.2d 698 (1990) (failure to conduct a Denno [2] hearing) ; Taffner v. State, 2018 Ark. 99, 541 S.W.3d 430 (failure to hold an in camera Ritchie [3] review of DHS file) .
We hold that an accused is entitled to relief from a conviction whenever the proceedings indicate the unfairness of trial without the help of a lawyer. See Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617 (1989) . That is the case here. Therefore, we reverse Shabazz's conviction and remand for retrial. ”