Opinion ID: 2602185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Self-representation

Text: Defendant represented himself at his preliminary hearing and at trial. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to readvise him of his right to counsel and in not obtaining a new waiver of that right at his arraignment in superior court. The pertinent circumstances relating to defendant's claim are as follows.
On September 4, 1997, defendant was arraigned in the Municipal Court of the Santa Monica Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, before the Honorable Hiroshi Fujisaki, a superior court judge sitting as magistrate. Defendant informed the court that he desired to represent himself. The court responded that you're risking a lot if you don't have guidance of counsel. The court thereafter asked defendant whether he would permit the public defender's office to represent him. Defendant declined the court's offer, commenting: I will stand on my Faretta [ v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562] rights and represent myself. I don't need the services of the public defender's office. The court informed defendant: [Y]ou're entitled to have a lawyer represent you at all stages of the proceedings. If you don't have the money for a lawyer, the Court will appoint a lawyer to represent you at no charge to you. (Italics added.) Defendant replied: I've elected to represent myself in pro per, your Honor. The court asked: Do you wish to be your own attorney? Defendant responded affirmatively. The court thereafter inquired: Do you understand if you choose to represent yourself, you are required to do everything that a lawyer would be required to do in representing you[?] That would include preparation of your defense, the cross examination of witnesses who would be called to testify against you. [¶] It would require the preparation of all the motions that you may need to make in writing, those that must be made in writing. You're going to be required to prepare subpoenas and to subpoena witnesses to appear in court on your behalf if you wish to offer any evidence. [1] You will have tobe responsible for the selection of a jury, selection of the jury instructions that will be presented to the jury. You'd be responsible for the examination of witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses[,] making opening and closing statements. [¶] And if you should be convicted, [self-representation] would require you to prepare your own requests such as they may be with regard to your sentencing. (Italics added.) Defendant stated that he understood the court's admonitions. [4] The court reiterated: You understand that you're not required to be your own attorney, that the Court will appoint a lawyer to represent you at public expense. That will be made available to you immediately if you wish to have the services of a lawyer. Do you understand that, sir? Defendant responded: Yes, and I thank you for it, but I elect to stand on my [Faretta ] rights at this time. I don't see any competent public defenders, you know, that I've met. Just don't strike me as, you know, able to go the whole road. So I can go to the penitentiary on my own. I don't need any help to go to prison. The court observed: Mr. Crayton, you seem to be knowledgeable about the law. You know something about the law? Defendant replied: I know that justice requires truth, your Honor, and I intend to lay the truth out before the jury and before the trier of fact in case we don't get to a jury. (Italics added.) Defendant reiterated his familiarity with Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562. The court asked the prosecutor to recite the list of constitutional rights that defendant intended to waive. The following colloquy ensued: Prosecutor: Mr. Crayton, again, you have a right to have an attorney at all stages of the proceeding. Do you understand that? Defendant: Yes, I do. Prosecutor: Do you give up the right to have a counsel, and you wish to assert your [Faretta ] rights and represent yourself? Defendant: That is correct. Prosecutor: You have a right to confront and cross-examine all the witnesses that would testify against you in this matter. Do you understand that? Defendant: Yes, I do. [¶] ... [¶] Prosecutor: If you don't have the money for an attorney, the Court will appoint you one. You understand that? Defendant: Yes, I do. Prosecutor: And you still don't want an attorney? Defendant: I have one. Prosecutor: Yourself. Defendant: Yes. Timothy Crayton is my attorney. Prosecutor: I'll just go through all the Miranda rights if he's going to make statements. Is that all right? The Court: Yes. Prosecutor: Okay. You have the right to confront and cross-examine all the witnesses who would testify against you in any of these matters, be it at the preliminary hearing or at the trial. You understand that? Defendant: Yes. Prosecutor: And you have the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. Do you understand that? Defendant: Yes. The court thereafter gave defendant the following additional admonitions. You have the right to a trial by jury on this matter. At this stage, you are being arraigned, and you will be given a preliminary hearing, at which time, at the preliminary hearing, you have the right to be confronted by the witnesses, either directly or through the police officers testifying according to the Penal Code provisions allowing their testimony in lieu of the appearance of certain witnesses. At that preliminary hearing, you have the right to ask questions of the witnesses who are called, and you have the right to require that the prosecutor prove to the judge at the preliminary hearing that there is sufficient evidence to believe that you committed any of these offenses before you could be held to answer to stand trial in the superior court. If they cannot prove that you are the person who is charged in these offenses and that these offenses did occur, then the complaint must be dismissed. If the prosecutor proves these things, then you would be held to answer. Then you would be bought to the superior court within two weeks, 14 days, for arraignment again in the superior court, and then when you are arraigned in the superior court, you would be entitled to be brought to trial within 60 days from that arraignment date. If you're not brought to trial within that time, you have the right to have the case dismissed, unless you agree or you request a postponement that carries the case beyond that time. At the trialas I said before, you have the right to trial by jury, if you wish it. The jury consists of 12 citizens selected by you and the prosecutor and the judge in a process called voir dire examination. The jury will listen to the evidence presented to it by the prosecutor and any evidence that you may wish to offer, if you wish to offer any evidence. During that trial process, you're going to have the obligation to protect yourself with regard to [r]ules of [e]vidence and the competency of witnesses. Since you're not a lawyer, I caution you that those rules are technical, and if you don't raise the objections, you may have given up the rights you may have under the [r]ules of [e]vidence, and evidence may come out at the trial that ordinarily a lawyer could keep out, but you would not have kept out because you may not have understood the [r]ules of [e]vidence. And you would not be able to later complain that you were ... inadequately represented by yourself because you chose to represent yourself. That's the problem with the Faretta right, you understand. If you choose to represent yourself and you do a bad job or an inadequate job, you can't ask for a new trial because you did an inadequate job. I'm not saying that you're going to do an inadequate job. I'm just saying that you're going to be stuck with what you do or don't do. Do you understand that, sir? (Italics added.) Defendant: Yes I do. I understand. I might have a fool for a client, but in this case, I'd like to do that.... I don't need no help to go to prison. I can go to prison by myself.... I don't need assistance to go to prison. The court thereafter provided further admonitions, as follows. Now, after we get to that point of the trial where you're presenting evidence if you want to and the prosecutor has presented the evidence, at the end of the case, you have the right to submit jury instructions. Jury instructions are basically rules of law that you're asking the judge to present to the jury to use in deciding your case. You would have the obligation on your side to prepare the instructions you want and to object to any of the instructions the prosecutor submits if you don't feel that they are proper instructions. Okay. And if you don't object, you've given up the right to appeal that. When the verdict comes down, if it's adverse to you and you are convicted, you have the right to be sentenced within 21 days. You also have the right to the preparation of a probation report in the sentencing. Ifafter a probation report is ordered, you have the right to present to the probation department any information that would be helpful with regard to your sentencing, whatever they're going to recommend. You ... have the right to input into the probation report. (Italics added.) Defendant: Yes, sir.
At a hearing conducted on October 7, 1997, before the Honorable Bernard J. Kamins (a superior court judge who served as the magistrate presiding over defendant's preliminary hearing and as the judge who presided over defendant's trial in superior court), defendant raised a number of issues unrelated to the subject of the present appeal. [5] During this hearing, the court again offered to provide defendant with legal representation, as follows: Mr. Crayton, you have chosen to represent yourself. [¶] ... [¶] If you wish to have a lawyer appointed, ... let me appoint a lawyer for you. And you have denied that request to me to assist you. [¶] ... If you have the chance to have an excellent lawyer represent you, and you're denying that request, or at least throwing it aside and now complaining it's too hard for you to represent yourself, that's really patently absurd, when you have the ability to have a lawyer helping you. [H] So, you don't want that. [¶] I would even consider a court advisory lawyer for you, someone to assist you, and you [have] turned that down. In response, defendant reiterated his request for the tools that I need (i.e., a voice-activated computer or paralegal services); when I get the tools, I'm fine.
The preliminary hearing in this case was conducted on October 14-15, 1997, before Judge Kamins, sitting in the capacity of a magistrate. At the conclusion of the People's presentation at the preliminary hearing, the court informed defendant: The court has offered to have a lawyer represent you; if not, an advisory counsel; if not that, then legal runners. And you have not availed yourself of those items. [¶] Also if you would like an investigator, I would be glad to appoint an investigator for you at the court's expense. [¶] So right now, do you have any defense you wish to put on at this time? Defendant responded: My defense to the court's comments is too little too late.
At defendant's arraignment on October 29, 1997, held before Judge Kamins acting in his capacity as a superior court judge, the court invited defendant to enter a plea, to which defendant responded with a challenge to the proceedings, on the ground that the court doesn't have jurisdiction. The court thereafter entered a plea of not guilty on defendant's behalf, set a trial date, and observed: I would state that even though you are representing yourself and represent that you have handicaps that slow you up, you're one of the ... most naturally bright defendants that's been in front of me in many, many years. [¶] So, in spite of whatever handicaps you feel you have, your ability to address the court, write papers, argue your own motions, say the right things is good. [If] And I would say that nothing is slowing you up from your ability to handle your own case. In fact, you're probably better than a lot of lawyers I've seen. The court did not provide any further advisement to defendant at that time regarding his right to counsel, nor did the court seek to obtain a new waiver of that right.
Defendant's trial was scheduled to commence on December 16, 1997. On that date, he sought and obtained a continuance. As to defendant's self-representation, the trial court observed: The court ... asked you if you wanted any advisory counsel, and you turned that down. Defendant replied: Advisory counsel can't help me, your honor.
On April 20, 1998, the trial court informed defendant that, based on the court's concern that defendant would not participate meaningfully at trial, it had appointed standby counsel, William Windon. Defendant objected, stating: It won't be necessary. I've got a real good lawyer representing me, Timothy Crayton. [¶] ... [¶] I object to any standby counsel, because you're trying to take my pro per status. And that, that's not right, that's unfair. [¶] ... [¶] I'm defending Timothy Crayton the best way I can. And I think I'm doing a good job. And so I don't see where standby counsel would come in. Although the trial court agreed as to defendant's competency to represent himself, it was not persuaded to withdraw its appointment of standby counsel to assist defendant should the need arise: I know that you're a bright fellow. I've seen your legal work. And I do agree that you've done more than most lawyers would do, and phrased your legal motions in appropriate form, and been very competent. [¶] ... And I want you to have the best representation. Defendant reaffirmed his desire and willingness to represent himself: Your Honor, I represented myself at four jury trials. I have never lost a jury trial. I've won all four jury trials. [¶] ... I know how to conduct myself at a trial. I have a duty to my client to represent him to the best of my ability. (Italics added.) Defendant then moved to dismiss the charges based on the grounds [among other reasons] that I've been denied the right of self-representation and effective meaningful self-representation.... Defendant added: I'm speaking under duress, under the threat of having my pro per status taken. The trial court disagreed with defendant's characterization: Mr. Crayton, I've not threatened to take away your pro per status, only to have an attorney come in to take over the case if you don't represent your client to the best of your ability. [¶] If you're going to tune out, then I want a lawyer to step in. If you wish, and it's your conscious choice not to participate, and to just sit there, you know you may be right, and maybe I wouldn't bring in standby counsel at that point. But I'll ask you if you want me to bring in counsel. Defendant replied: No I do not. [6]