Court Opinion

ID: 9723875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:37:01.532215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:52.945994
License: Public Domain

ASHBY, J.
I respectfully dissent. There are cases where the services of a lawyer are crucial to a proper defense, but this case is not one of them. This is no close case. Defendant is an ex-convict charged with possession of a gun. The evidence is clear that he possessed and used the gun. Defendant has had much prior experience with the courts. Based on his record, it is clear that he was very aware of the technicalities of a criminal trial and that he did not need to be informed of “the most significant consequences of going it alone.” As far as discouraging defendant from representing himself, it should be noted that he currently is still representing himself in various petitions and applications. Any error in not specifically warning defendant of the difficulty in representing himself was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Cervantes, 87 Cal.App.3d 281, 293-294 [150 Cal.Rptr. 819].) Any further recycling of this case will result only in needlessly imposing an additional burden on an overburdened court system.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 30, 1979. Clark, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.