Opinion ID: 694914
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Proceed Pro se

Text: 17 In Godinez v. Moran, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2686-87 (1993), the Supreme Court recently held that the standard of competency to waive counsel is the same as that to stand trial. Martin argues that, applied retroactively, the Godinez holding requires a finding that the trial court erred in his case by initially denying his motion to represent himself. The trial court had initially ruled that because of his low IQ, epilepsy, and inability to articulate himself clearly, Martin was incapable of defending himself in a capital case. 18 This ruling, however, was not the end of the matter because the next day the trial court reopened the hearing to reconsider Martin's request. Martin, however, declined to argue the motion during the second hearing. 19 The California Court of Appeals found that because Martin did not argue in the reconsideration hearing as to why he should proceed pro se, he effectively withdrew his motion. This finding was adopted by the magistrate and the district court. 20 Martin argues that because the trial court clearly denied his initial request to proceed pro se, he was not, as a matter of law, required to argue the point further. He cites Dorman v. Wainwright, 798 F.2d 1358 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 951 (1987), for this proposition. Martin's argument fails at its premise. Although the trial court initially denied his request, it subsequently reopened the hearing and clearly indicated to Martin that it would reconsider his motion. The court made several pointed inquiries of Martin as to how he would proceed were he to represent himself. Martin, however, refused to cooperate at first, then repeated over and over that he was sticking with his attorney as had been decided in the previous day's hearing. This fact distinguishes Martin's case from those cases he cites in support of his argument. In each of those cases, the court denied the defendant's motion. Here, the motion was not finally denied until after the rehearing. The trial judge had made it clear to Martin that he was reconsidering the motion. Nevertheless, Martin decided not to pursue his arguments. The appellate court found that he had decided to abandon his request to proceed pro se. This finding is adequately supported by the record. Because we review the state court's findings of fact and the district court's adoption of these findings for clear error, Jeffries, 5 F.3d at 1187; Carter v. McCarthy, 806 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 870 (1987), we affirm the district court on this issue.