There was no violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel where appellant waived his right to counsel and represented himself at a jury trial on a charge of driving under the influence. Because appellant had previously been convicted of drunk driving, it can be assumed that he knew he was entitled to appointed counsel if he qualified financially. Therefore, his waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. J. Canby dissented, noting that the waiver was not knowing and intelligent. Baker made it clear that he would represent himself because he had no funds to hire counsel. Since the right to appointed counsel was never adequately explained, reversal was required.