Opinion ID: 1210508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged violation of defendant's state and federal constitutional rights

Text: Defendant contends that if, as we held in People v. Stanworth, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pages 832-834, 80 Cal.Rptr. 49, 457 P.2d 889, section 1239(b) bars this court from dismissing, even at a defendant's request, an automatic appeal from a judgment of death, it is unconstitutional because it violates a defendant's right to control his defense. He asserts that this right arises from the provisions of the state and federal Constitutions entitling a criminal defendant to the assistance of counsel. (U.S. Const., Amend. VI; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) Defendant relies primarily on Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, which holds that a criminal defendant has the right of self-representation at trial. But, as we noted in Massie I, `Faretta does not purport ...' ... to abrogate the rule ... that a capital defendant has no right to waive his automatic appeal. ( Massie I, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 624, 221 Cal.Rptr. 140, 709 P.2d 1309.) Defendant points to isolated comments in federal cases that were decided after our decision in Massie I and state that a defendant has the right to decide whether to appeal. (See Jones v. Barnes (1983) 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987[[T]he accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his own behalf, or take an appeal .... (Italics added.) ]; Marrow v. United States (9th Cir.1985) 772 F.2d 525, 530 [The decision whether to appeal `must be the defendant's own choice,'... even after a guilty plea....].) We do not view these passing remarks, taken out of the context in which they arose in noncapital cases, as establishing a rule that a capital defendant who has been sentenced to death has a constitutional right to waive an automatic appeal. Defendant relies on a series of recent cases in which we have held that at trial a capital defendant may elect self-representation and present no mitigating evidence on his own behalf, notwithstanding California's interest in assuring a reliable penalty determination in capital cases. (See People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1363-1373, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259; People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1062-1064, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 846 P.2d 756; People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 566,11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353, 834 P.2d 1171; People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 809-811, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436; People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1029-1030, 264 Cal.Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627.) These cases, he argues, demonstrate that the state's interest in the reliability of a capital trial does not outweigh a defendant's right to control the defense. No weighing, however, is required. Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, does not grant defendants the right to control their appeals, either by electing self representation ( People v. Scott (1998) 64 Cal. App.4th 550, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [no right of self-representation on appeal]; In re Walker (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229, 128 Cal. Rptr. 291 [same]), by electing which issues to raise (see People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 173, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561 [court will not accept in propria persona filings in automatic appeal]), or (as urged by defendant) by waiving an automatic appeal. Defendant further contends that section 1239(b), which prohibits this court from granting requests by defendants sentenced to death to dismiss their automatic appeals, violates his right to equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution. We disagree. As we have explained, the first prerequisite to such a claim is a showing that `the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.' ( People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 223, 260 Cal.Rptr. 583, 776 P.2d 285, quoting In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 530, 159 Cal. Rptr. 317, 601 P.2d 549, italics omitted.) Section 1239(b) applies to individuals who, like defendant, have been sentenced to death. Defendant fails to identify any other similarly situated group that is affected differently by section 1239(b).