Opinion ID: 844220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Self-representation Evaluation and Hearing

Text: As already stated (see, ante, at p. 72), after defendant was first charged with the murder of Patrick Rooney, he briefly exercised his right of self-representation. The prosecution later dismissed and refiled the charges in a different judicial district, and court proceedings recommenced. The appellate record includes some documents relating to the original prosecution, including an order appointing a psychologist to examine defendant to determine his competence to represent himself, but it does not include a report from the psychologist, nor does it include a transcript of the hearing at which the trial court granted defendant‟s request for self-representation. Defendant contends that he has been prejudiced by these omissions, particularly in light of the trial court‟s comment, when it granted defendant‟s presentencing request for self-representation, that it was relying in part on “the fact that another judicial officer on a previous occasion made a finding that he was able to represent himself.” The court‟s order of appointment stated that the psychologist was to furnish a report “only to the court in camera” and the court‟s minute order similarly stated 79 that the psychologist was “appointed to examine the defendant and to provide a confidential report to the Court only.” It is unclear whether any report was ever made or whether any hearing on the motion for self-representation was ever held. In any event, defendant has failed to show he was prejudiced by the alleged omissions. When it granted defendant‟s presentencing motion for selfrepresentation, the trial court placed minimal reliance on the earlier determination that defendant was competent to represent himself. The existing appellate record is adequate to provide meaningful review of defendant‟s claim that the trial court erred in granting his motion for self-representation.