In 2007, Braden Loeser, a twenty-one-year old college student, was arrested in Springfield, Oregon, for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Loeser was informed of his right to apply for court-appointed counsel and waived it. At his arraignment, he pleaded guilty. Six weeks later, he appeared for sentencing, again waived his right to counsel, and was sentenced to two days in jail. In 2008, Loeser was convicted of DUI again, and in 2009, he was charged with DUI for a third time. Under Oregon law, a third DUI offense is a felony. Loeser argued that the court should not use his first DUI conviction to enhance the third DUI charge. He claimed that his 2007 waiver of counsel was not “intelligent” because the court had not made him aware of “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” What determines whether a person’s choice in any situation is “intelligent”? What should determine whether a defendant’s waiver of counsel is “intelligent” at critical stages of a criminal proceeding?