whether-defendant-must-understand-elements-of-charged-offenses

QUESTIONS PRESENTED During petitioner’s waiver colloquy with the district judge, the district judge failed to inquire whether petitioner understood the elements of the charges; failed to assure that petitioner understood that the maximum “years” of penalties that he faced were years of imprisonment (as opposed to years of probation); and failed to inquire about petitioner’s education. The questions presented are: I. Whether, for a waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to trial counsel to be effective, a defendant must understand the elements of the charged offenses — as part of the defendant’s understanding of the “nature of charges,” Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 724 (1948) (plurality op.)); cf. Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005) (‘Where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime without having been informed of the crime’s elements, th[e] [due process] standard is not met and the plea is invalid.”) Il. Whether a trial judge must provide unambiguous information about the maximum criminal penalties that a defendant faces upon conviction before accepting the defendant’s waiver of his right to trial counsel. Il. Whether a trial judge must address the factors set forth in the plurality opinion in Von Moltke, supra, in a waiver colloquy in order for a defendant’s waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to be valid. IV. Whether the district court violated the Speedy Trial Act. i