1 Filed 11/27/13 P. v. Watson CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. AARON BRANDON WATSON, Defendant and Appellant. E056797 (Super.Ct.No . FWV1101576)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Mary E. Fuller, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Da ne R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Atto rney General, Barry Carlton and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys Genera l, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Acting in pro. per., defendant and a ppellant Aaron Brand on Watson pled no contest to stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).) 1 In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and defendant was placed on felony probation on various terms and conditions. Subsequently, defe ndant violated the terms of his probation by committing a petty theft. Defendant’s probation was then re voked, and he was sentenced to three years in county jail. On appeal, defendant argues th at he should be allowed to withdraw his no contest plea, because the trial court applied an improper standard in determining whether he was competent to represent himself and to enter his no contest plea. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

I

BACKGROUND On June 29, 2011, an information was filed charging defendant with attempted first degree burglary (§§ 664/459) and stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b)). The information further alleged that defendant had suffered two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). On August 5, 2011, Judge Shahla Sabet declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency, suspended crim inal proceedings, and appo inted Dr. David Walsh to examine defendant pursuant to sections 1368 and 1369.Dr. Walsh concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial; that he understo od the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him; and that he coul d cooperate in a rational manner with his

1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.3 attorney. Dr. Walsh also fou nd that defendant did not exhibit symptoms of depression, psychosis, or mania, but that he had shown signs of cogn itive irregularities as evidenced by his obsession in repeatedly re turning to the victim’s resi dence. Defendant’s cognitive irregularities, however, were not serious en ough to “warrant a clinical diagnosis.” On September 16, 2011, defendant’s counsel requested that defendant be evaluated by a second doctor. Judge Sabet granted the request and appointed Dr. Laura

Brodie to evaluate defendant. Dr. Brodie also found defendant was competent to stand trial; that he understood the nature and purpose of the procee dings against him; and that he could cooperate in a rational manner with his attorney. However, Dr. Brodie noted that defendant suffered from a “possible delusional disorder in regard to his sister and the vendetta he feels she is creating,” and that “t he delusion is fixated and focused only in the area of his sister’s desire to take his money a nd inheritance.” In all other areas, defendant was “rational and able to function effectively.” On November 4, 2011, J udge Sabet found that defenda nt was competent to stand trial and reinstated the proceedings. On December 9, 2011, Judge Sabet agai n declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency, suspended crimin al proceedings, and appointed Dr. Tseday Aberra to examine defendant. Dr. Aberra had attempted to evaluate defendant; however, defendant declined to participat e in the evaluation, stating the court should use the previously submitted psychological evaluations. On January 20, 2012, defend ant informed Judge Sabet that he would not cooperate with any further evaluations. Defendant and his counsel stipulated that the court could4 proceed by reviewing the eval uations previously conducted by Drs. Walsh and Brodie. Judge Sabet stated that if defendant’s counsel had no doubt as to defendant’s competency, she would proceed with the two previous re ports. Judge Sabet found defendant competent to stand trial, noting de fendant was malingering, attempting to delay his case, and “playing with the system.” On that same date, January 20, defendant made a Marsden 2 motion to change his lawyer. He also made a Faretta 3 motion to represent hims elf. After Judge Sabet conducted the hearing a nd denied defendant’s Marsden motion, Judge Sabet heard defendant’s request to represent himself. Judge Sabet explaine d to defendant his potential maximum sentence and the consequenc es of representing himself. Judge Sabet also gave defendant a Faretta waiver to read, initial, and si gn. Defendant indicated that he had read, initialed, and signed the Faretta waiver form; that he understood it was generally unwise to represent himself; and that despite it being an unwise decision, defendant still wished to represent himself. Defendant noted that he had a high school diploma and a bachelor’s degree in computer science. After Judge Sabet at length again explained the procedures and ills in self-representation, Ju dge Sabet grante d defendant’s

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 ( Marsden ).

3 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 ( Faretta ).5 motion to represent himsel f, finding defendant had kn owingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel in all the cases pending before the court. 4 Subsequently, on that same date, January 20, defendant was arraigned on a second amended information, charging defendant with one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b), count 1); two counts of tres passing by entering and occupyin g real property (§ 602, subd. (m), count 2 & 3); four counts of disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4), counts 4-7); and attempted first degree burgl ary (§§ 664/459, count 8). The second amended information also alleged that defend ant had suffered two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) On February 14, 2012, defendant made an oral motion to disqualify Judge Sabet. Judge Sabet denied the motion, explaining to defendant that he had to make a written motion to disqualify a judge. On that same date, the prosecutor offered defendant a plea—plead guilty to the felony stalking offense, dismiss a ll other counts, be released from county jail, and be placed on probation for three years. Defendant rejected that offer. Defendant thereafter sought to wit hdraw his pro. per. status due to time constraints, the judge being unreasonable, and so an attorney could file written motions. Judge Sabet took the request under submissi on to research the matter and informed

defendant she would rule on February 24, 2012. On February 24, 2012, defenda nt indicated that he would like to represent himself

and that he did not need an attorney. Defendant thereaf ter again moved to disqualify

4 The People’s motion to consolidate seve ral cases was granted on November 18, 2011.6 Judge Sabet, handing court staff a declarati on of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. Judge Sabet stayed the proceedings so that she could file a response and the matter could be heard by another judge. De fendant then asked to speak with the prosecutor off the record. After the conference, the prosecutor went back on the record stating that she and defendant had reache d a plea bargain. In light of the motion to disqualify, Judge Sabet transferre d the matter to Ju dge Mary Fuller. Thereafter, on that same date, February 24, defendant pled no contest to stalking. In return, defendant was promis ed that the remaining allega tions would be dismissed and that he would be placed on felony probation for a period of three years on various terms and conditions, including servi ng 365 days in county jail w ith credit for time served. During the taking of the plea, defendant person ally asked questions to terms he did not understand. After advising de fendant of his constitutional ri ghts and the consequences of pleading guilty, Judge Fuller foun d that defendant understood hi s rights, the nature of the crimes charged against him, and the conseque nces of pleading guilty . Judge Fuller also found that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pled no contes t and that he had expressly waived his constitutional rights. Defendant was subsequently re leased on his own recognizance pursuant to the pl ea agreement. The sentenci ng hearing was set for March 23, 2012. On March 23, 2012, defendant asked to w ithdraw his plea and requested counsel to represent him. Judge Fuller explained to defendant that the bailiff would have to take him into custody and appointed a public defende r to represent him. After conferring with his appointed counsel and the court’s denial of his motion to be released on his own7 recognizance, defendant requested he be sentenced. The court thereafter placed defendant on supervised probation for a pe riod of three years and dismissed the remaining allegations in accord ance with the plea agreement. About one month later on Apr il 24, 2012, defendant was arrested for petty theft after he was observed stealing shav ing items from a Sears’ store. On April 25, 2012, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation based on his arrest for petty theft. (§ 490.5, subd. (a).) De fendant’s probation was revoked on April 27, 2012. Follo wing a probation violation h earing on June 1, 2012, the

court found true that defendant had violated his probation and orde red that defendant’s probation remain revoked. On June 29, 2012, defendant asked to withdraw his no contest plea in the stalking case, claiming he was coerced in to pleading no contest. He also requested that he be allowed to represent himself. Judge Fuller a dvised defendant that a motion to withdraw a plea had to be in writing; that he had to give the People no tice; and that the court could not hear the motion to withdraw his plea on that day. Judge Fuller also explained to

defendant that even if he was allowed to represent himself, the motion to withdraw his plea would not be heard that day. The court then granted defendant’s appointed counsel’s request to continue the sentencing hearing. Defendant ho wever interjected and requested he be allowed to repr esent himself. Judge Fuller e xplained to defendant that he had competent representation a nd the perils of representi ng himself. Defendant still wished to represent himself, and the cour t granted defendant’s request. Thereafter, defendant again sought to make an oral mo tion to withdraw his no contest plea. The8 court explained to defendant th at he had to file a written mo tion, denied defendant’s oral request, and continued the matter. On July 23, 2012, defendant filed a written motion entitled, “Motion Objecting [ sic ] Prosecution Repeatedly Presenting False Evidence to the Court and Probation/Court Jurisdiction per Penal Code 1203.2a,” which th e court treated as a motion to withdraw his no contest plea. A hearing on the motion was held on July 27, 2012 . Defendant stated the motion was based on “induced plea, questi on of favorable exculpatory evidence from the District Attorney, [and] misrepresentation of evidence for withdrawal of plea,” and again accused the victim of falsifying eviden ce. After hearing argument from defendant, Judge Fuller denied defendant’s motion, an d at defendant’s request, appointed an attorney to represent defendant for sentenci ng. Following argument from counsel, Judge Fuller denied defendant’s request to be rein stated on probation a nd sentenced defendant to three years in county jail. On July 27, 2012, defendant filed a notice of appeal, claiming his no contest plea was unconstitutional. He also requested a certificate of probable cause. Judge Fuller granted defendant’s request for a certific ate of probable cause on July 30, 2012.

II

DISCUSSION Defendant argues that he should be pe rmitted to withdraw his no contest plea because the trial court imprope rly focused on his knowledge a nd experience rather than his mental state and ability to understand th e proceedings and the consequences of his plea in allowing him to represent himself in entering the plea. In support, he cites to9 cases involving the standard for self-represen tation, arguing his mental health issues rendered him incompetent to represent hims elf and the court “fundamentally confused” the self-representation inquiry. A defendant may move to withdraw his plea at any time before judgment or within six months after an order gran ting probation is made if entr y of judgment is suspended, on a showing of good cause. (§ 1018.) “M istake, ignorance or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is g ood cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea. [Citations.] But good cause must be shown by clear a nd convincing evidence.” ( People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566 .) Furthermore, “[g]uilty pleas resulting from a bargain should not be set aside ligh tly and finality of proceedings should be encouraged. [Citations.]” ( People v. Hunt (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 95, 10 3.) “‘“[T]he withdrawal of such a plea rests in the sound discretion of th e trial court and may not be disturbed unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” [Citation.]’” ( People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 585.)

While defendant does not di spute he was mentally competent to stand trial, he alleges on appeal that the trial court failed to adequately determine he was mentally competent to make the waiver of the right to counsel for th e purposes of pleading guilty, maintaining a different standard of inquiry is required for the purpo ses of pleading guilty than when a defendant elects to proceed to tria l. We conclude the trial court did not err by granting defendant’s request for self-repre sentation, and therefore defendant is not entitled to withdraw his no contest plea.10 “The longstanding test for de termining the validity of a guilty plea is ‘whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choi ce among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ [Citations.]” ( Hill v. Lockhart (1985) 474 U.S. 52, 56, citing North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 31; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242.) 5 “Waivers of constitutional rights [given up in the process of entering such a plea] not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with

sufficient awareness of the relevant circ umstances and likely consequences.” ( Brady v.

United States (1970) 397 U.S. 742, 748, fn. omitted .) “What is at stake for an accused facing . . . imprisonment demands the utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.” ( Boykin v. Alabama , supra , 395 U.S. at pp. 243-244.) In short, the pertinent inquir y is whether the record affirmatively shows

the admission was volunt ary and intelligent under the to tality of the circumstances. ( People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 360; People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1175.) Here, unlike the usual case, we are presen ted with the argument that despite the seeming regularity of the change of plea pr oceedings, defendant did not voluntarily and intelligently enter into his no cont est plea because the trial cour t failed to pr operly inquire into his mental competency to represent himself for the purposes of pleading no contest.

5 For our purposes, guilty and no contest pl eas are treated the same. (See § 1016, subd. 3.) Accordingly, refe rences in the case law to guilty pleas also encompass defendant’s no contest plea.11 “A criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent [citation], and he may not . . . plead guilty unless he does so ‘competently and intelligently’ [citations].” ( Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389, 396 ( Godinez ).) In Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402 ( Dusky ), the United States Supreme Cour t stated that, for a finding of competency to stand trial, “ it is not enough . . . that ‘the defendant [is] oriented to time and place and [has] some recollection of events,’ but that the ‘test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to cons ult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he had a rational as well as f actual understanding of the proceedings against him.’” ( Ibid .; accord, Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 172.) California statutory law defines an accused as mentally incompeten t “if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability , the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assi st counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” (§ 1367, subd. (a).) The standards, although not matching word for word, are identical. ( People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 808; see People v.

Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 507.)

In Faretta , supra , 422 U.S. 806, the United States Supreme Court held the Sixth

Amendment to the United States Constitutio n gives criminal defe ndants the right to represent themselves. Before Faretta was decided, the law in California had been that a

criminal defendant had no constitutional or stat utory right to self-re presentation, except, in noncapital cases, the trial court had discre tion to grant a defendant’s request for selfrepresentation. ( People v. Sharp (1972) 7 Cal.3d 448, 459, 461, 463-464.)12 “In the wake of Faretta’s strong constitutional statement, California courts tended to view the federal self-representation righ t as absolute, assuming a valid waiver of counsel.” ( People v. Taylor (2009) 47 Cal.4th 850, 872 ( Taylor ).) In other words, a trial court had to grant a defenda nt’s request for self-repres entation if the defendant voluntarily and intelligently electe d to do so, even if the de fendant, though competent to stand trial, was not competent to se rve as his or her own attorney. ( Id . at pp. 872-873.)

In People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, the California Supreme Court rejected the notion that a higher degree of competence is required to plead gui lty than merely to stand trial. ( Id . at pp. 583-584.) In Godinez , the United States Supreme Court agreed that the competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving the right to counsel is no higher than the comp etency standard for standing trial. ( Godinez , supra , 509 U.S. at p. 391.) Reiterating the Dusky benchmark as the appropriate one for competence to stand trial ( id . at p. 396), the court stated that, “while the decision to plead guilty is undeniably a profound one, it is no more complicated than the sum total of decisions that a defendant may be called upon to make during the course of a trial. . . . This being so, we can conceive of no basis for demanding a higher level of competence for those defendants who choose to plead guilty. If the Dusky standard is adequate for defendants who plead not guilty, it is necessa rily adequate for those who plead guilty.” ( Id . at pp. 398-399.) The court went on to expl ain, however, that “[a] fi nding that a defendant is competent to stand trial . . . is not all that is necessary before he may be permitted to plead guilty . . . . In additio n to determining that a defenda nt who seeks to plead guilty . . . is competent, a trial cour t must satisfy itself that the wa iver of his constitutional rights13 is knowing and voluntary. [Cita tions.] In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for pleading guilty . . . but it is not a he ightened standard of competence.” 6 ( Godinez , supra , 509 U.S. at pp. 400-401, fn. omitted.) In a f ootnote, the court elaborated: “The focus of a competency inquiry is the de fendant’s mental capacity; the question is whether he has

the ability to understand the proceedings. See Drope v. Missouri , supra , [420 U.S. at p. 171] (defendant is inco mpetent if he ‘lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him’) (empha sis added). The purpose of the ‘knowing and voluntary’ inquiry, by contrast, is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the

decision is uncoerced. See Faretta v. California , supra , [422 U.S.] at [p.] 835 (defendant waiving counsel must be ‘made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of selfrepresentation, so that the re cord will establish that “he kn ows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open”’) [citation]; Boykin v. Alabama , [ supra , 395 U.S. at p. 244] (defendant pl eading guilty must have ‘a full un derstanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence’).” ( Godinez , supra , 509 U.S. at p. 401, fn. 12.) In 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 554 U.S. 164 ( Edwards ). In that case, the Indiana state trial court denied the defendant’s request for self-representati on and found that, while the defendant was competent to

6 The court made clear it was not sugges ting a trial court is required to make a competency determination in every case in which a defenda nt seeks to plead guilty, but that, as in any criminal case, a competency determination is necessary only when that court has reason to doubt the defendant’s competence. ( Godinez , supra , 509 U.S. at p. 401, fn. 13.)14 stand trial, he was not competent to represent himself at trial. ( Id . at p. 169.) An Indiana appellate court ordered a new trial, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court on the ground Faretta and Godinez required the trial court to permit the defendant to represent himself. ( Edwards , at p. 169.) The United States Supreme Court reversed , holding: “[T]he Constitution permits judges to take realistic accoun t of the particular defendant’s mental capacities by asking

whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so. That is to say, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.” ( Edwards , supra , 554 U.S. at pp. 177-178.) The court called those defendants who are competent to st and trial but not to represent themselves “gray-area defendants.” ( Id . at p. 174.)

Edwards did not hold that due process re quires a higher standard of mental competence for self-representati on than is required to stand trial with counsel. Rather, “[t]he Edwards court held only that states may , without running afoul of Faretta , impose a higher standard . . . .” ( Taylor , supra , 47 Cal.4th at pp. 877-878.) In Taylor , the California Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s request for self-representation. ( Id . at pp. 856, 868, 878-879.) Because Edwards did not mandate the application of “‘a dual standard of competency for mentally ill defendants,’” that case “does not support a claim of federal constitutional error in a case like the present one, in which defendant’s request to represent himself was granted.” ( Taylor , at p. 878.)15 The Taylor court also rejected the defendant’ s argument the trial court should have exercised its discretion, recognized in Edwards , to apply a higher standard than competence to stand trial. ( Id. at p. 879.)

We read Godinez’s two-part inquiry ( Godinez , supra , 509 U .S. at p. 401) as requiring, first, that in order to be competent, a defendant must be capable of entering a plea that is valid. In other words, he or sh e cannot merely be oriented to time and place and have some recollection of events, but must have a present ability to consult with his or her attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding , and have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. He or she must be capable of comprehending the rights being given up and of understanding the pr oceedings, and of making a choice among the alternative course s of action open to him or her with a reasonable degree of rationality. In short, th e defendant must have a sufficient level of intellectual functioning to be able to underst and what is being said, both by his or her attorney and by the court, and to process th at information. Seco nd, the defendant must not only have the capacity or ability to understand, he or she must actually understand what he or she is doing and the significan ce and consequences of that decision. Nothing in the present record suggests that Judge Sabet confused the standards for self-representation for purpose s of entering a plea under Godinez with the standards for self-representation for purposes of proceeding to trial under Faretta and Edwards

. Initially, we note that defendant erroneously contends that he sought to represent himself

for the sole purpose of the no contest plea. Defe ndant desired to represent himself before any plea discussion and for purpos es of proceeding to trial rath er than the sole purpose of16 pleading guilty. Defendant’s in quiry for the purposes of the Faretta motion was before Judge Sabet, and after the judge had already determined and delved into defendant’s mental competency. Defendant did not plea d until almost a month later before Judge Fuller, after Judge Sabet had already determin ed defendant was competent to stand trial

and after defendant had knowin gly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Furthermore, the record shows that defendant was mentally capable of understanding the nature of the charges agains t him and the nature of the rights he was asked to waive. During the waiver of his ri ght to counsel and the pl ea hearing, defendant answered questions appropriately; filled out, signed, and initialed the proper waiver form adequately; and he was advise d of the ills in representing himself and the consequences of pleading no contest. Besides pointing to statements made by defendant during the hearings, defendant has not offered any ev idence to show that he did not actually understand the proceedings an d the consequences of pleading guilty. Although the statements cited by defendant in his brief could be argued as demonstrating defendant’s lack of actual understanding, it afforded no ba sis upon which to differentiate capacity to understand—competence—from actual appreciation. Stated another way, the record does not support a finding that defendant was capable of understanding and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering a no contest plea, and yet did not actually

understand for reasons not am ounting to incompetence. 7 The record es tablishes that

7 Similarly, there was no evidence of an y mistake, ignorance, or other factor constituting good cause for withdrawal of the plea under section 1018, apart from evidence demonstrating incompetence.17 defendant was intelligent, capa ble of entering a valid plea , and waiving his right to

counsel. There is no evidence presented to the contrary, only conclusions that his mental competence rendered defendant inca pable of entering a valid plea. In our view, if defendant was competent, then necessarily he had the capacity to enter a valid plea; if defendant could not understand what was being said to him or process it, then he was not competent and he likewise places a different perspective on the issue. Defendant has repeatedly and ex pressly refused to place his competence in dispute, both in the trial court and before this court. We may speculate that this

concession was made because the psychiatric evidence available is that he was, in fact, competent and therefore limiting the argument th at properly could be made to whether he actually understood. Defendant’s attempt to parse the standards of competence and the concepts of knowing and intelligent waiver fo r purposes of pleading guilty versus for proceeding to trial into distinct aspects that utilize the same standards to reach different results cannot be logically reconciled. Defe ndant was either competent or he was not. Defendant’s argument would place a trial cour t in the untenable position of never being

able to achieve a level of confidence in his understanding, which is the precise purpose of a competency proceedi ng under section 1368. We have carefully reviewed defendan t’s plea. Defendant personally asked questions to terms he did not understand. In addition, Judge Fuller made specific efforts

to ensure that defendant understood the terms of his plea and, after further explanation, elicited specific concessions from defendant that he understood. Not only was there absolutely nothing in the plea record to indicate defenda nt did not understand the rights18 he was waiving or the nature of the process, there was nothing to suggest defendant was mentally incompetent to enter the plea. We find no basis to conclude defendant did not

understand. In our view, Judge Fuller—an experienced ju rist, made every effort to ensure that an adequate plea was taken. In addition, de fendant was found competent to stand trial,

and defendant did not exhibit a ny mental issues before Judge Fuller to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, following an adequate Farretta inquiry before Judge Sabet, defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel for the purposes of proceeding to trial or pleading no contest. Moreover, gi ven that defendant was competent to enter a plea and there was no evidence to suggest othe rwise, even if Judge Sabet erred in the

Faretta inquiry, the record does no t support the conclusion that the plea, which was taken before a different jurist, was not knowing a nd intelligent for purposes of understanding or waiver. Upon being asked at the time of th e change of plea pr oceedings, defendant expressed his confidence that he understood a nd there was no evidence to suggest that he was incompetent of understanding. Now, af ter a substantial length of time, defendant asserts, not that he was inco mpetent at the time he entered into his plea, but that, as a result of an inadequate inquiry under Faretta for the purposes of entering a plea, he should be permitted to withdraw his no contest plea. The evidence simply does not support a conclusion that defendant did no t actually understand what he was doing. Here, Judge Sabet properly applied the st andards for self-representation, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Defe ndant knowingly and intelligently pled no contest. Accordingly, there is no basis to withdraw defendant’s plea of no contest.19 III

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLSIHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI J.

CODRINGTON J.