Opinion ID: 1261738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: appellant's constitutional claim

Text: Appellant's right to represent himself is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). This court has held that the right of self-representation includes a right of access to an adequate law library. Wolfe v. State, 95 Nev. 240, 591 P.2d 1155 (1979). See also Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). Appellant argues that his confinement in a maximum security cell, without access to a law library, violated his rights under Faretta and Wolfe. However, appellant's confinement was directly caused by his own behavior as an escapist and an admitted security risk. He does not argue that he was unreasonably confined, but contends that, because he was representing himself, special arrangements should have been made to permit him to use the law library. Wolfe and Faretta guarantee no such special privileges to defendants who represent themselves. See State v. Yanich, 110 Ariz. 172, 516 P.2d 308 (1973); Ferrel v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 888, 144 Cal. Rptr. 610, 576 P.2d 93 (1978). Moreover, appellant had two appointed standby attorneys, with whom he refused to discuss his defense. It is likely that, had he enlisted their aid, his standby attorneys could have provided him with legal materials. Cf. Hollis v. State, 95 Nev. 664, 601 P.2d 62 (1979) (provision of law books to defendant by standby counsel satisfies requirements of Wolfe ). See also People v. Rice, 40 Colo. App. 357, 579 P.2d 647 (1978). We conclude that confining appellant in a maximum security cell did not violate his constitutional rights.