Skip to content
Name: People v. Cooks (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1124
Case #: D079706
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023

An appeal from trial counsel’s waiver of defendant’s right to be personally present at any future restitution hearing must be dismissed as unripe where no restitution hearing has yet taken place. At defendant’s sentencing, the trial court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), and defense counsel stated that defendant waived his right to appear at any future restitution hearing. Defendant appealed, arguing he never validly waived this right. Held: Appeal dismissed. A controversy is not ripe until “the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made.” Courts addressing the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bush
Case #: A140589
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 01/11/2017

A trial court is not required to advise a defendant of all possible penal consequences of his offense in order to obtain a valid pretrial waiver of right to counsel. Bush, who represented himself at trial, was found guilty of receiving and illegally acquiring proceeds derived from a controlled substance offense (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.9, subd. (a)) and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). On appeal he argued his pretrial Faretta waiver (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806) was defective for lack of proper admonitions. Held: Affirmed. A criminal defendant has a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Shepard
Case #: C077166
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/19/2015

Petitioner waived his right to a hearing on his petition for certificate of rehabilitation when he left courthouse without participating in the hearing on the petition. Shepard, who had a 1991 rape conviction and convictions for other offenses, filed a petition for certificate of rehabilitation (Pen. Code, § 4852.01) in 2014. The prosecution opposed the petition in a written report, arguing that Shepard took no responsibility for the rape and claimed his attorney coerced a plea. Shepard asserted that the court bailiff handed him the court's tentative ruling when he came to court for his hearing, told him the petition…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Miranda
Case #: B256806
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 05/13/2015

Defendant's waiver of right to counsel was voluntary, despite his later claims of mental health problems, because the record did not reflect that he was unable to represent himself without the help of counsel. Miranda was charged with making criminal threats and resisting an officer. When his public defender informed the court she needed additional time to prepare, Miranda asked to represent himself. The court granted his request, although standby counsel was present during the trial. He was convicted. On appeal, he claimed the trial court erred in allowing the self-representation and by not reconsidering that decision after witnesses testified…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jackio
Case #: C074019
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/30/2015

For a waiver of the right to counsel to be knowing and voluntary, the trial court does not need to warn a defendant about the full range of sentencing possibilities; it need only warn him about the maximum penalty. Jackio was charged with first degree burglary, attempted first degree robbery, and a number of other offenses and enhancements. He asked to represent himself. The trial court warned Jackio of the dangers of self-representation, including the possibility that he faced "life in prison" if convicted. Jackio signed a Faretta waiver form which provided a similar advisement. The jury convicted him of…

View Full Summary
Name: Marshall v. Rodgers
Case #: 12-382
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 04/01/2013
Subsequent History: 133 S.Ct. 1446; 185 L.Ed.2d 540

California trial court did not violate Sixth Amendment right to counsel by refusing to appoint counsel postconviction for purposes of filing new trial motion. Rodgers was convicted in state court of making criminal threats and firearm offenses. During the state court proceedings he was at several points represented by counsel and at others, self-represented. After a guilty verdict, Rodgers' request for appointment of counsel to file a new trial motion was denied. The state court affirmed his conviction. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding Rodgers' Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when his timely request for counsel postconviction was denied.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bauer
Case #: D060346
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/19/2012

A probation revocation/deferred sentencing hearing is not a continuation of the initial criminal proceeding and a defendant must be advised of his right to counsel at the subsequent hearing. Although the United States Supreme Court has declined to establish an inflexible constitutional right to counsel at every revocation hearing, under California law an indigent criminal defendant has a right to appointed counsel at a probation revocation hearing and a constitutional right to counsel at a deferred sentencing hearing, and must be informed of these rights. Here, appellant represented himself when he pled guilty to a violation of Penal Code section…

View Full Summary
Name: Rogers v. Marshall
Case #: 10-55816
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/17/2012

The hearing on a motion for new trial is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding and the denial of a request for counsel at that stage, after a prior waiver of counsel, is a Sixth Amendment violation. Rogers entered a Faretta waiver and represented himself at trial. Once there were jury verdicts against him, he timely requested that the court appoint counsel to represent him for the purpose of filing a motion for new trial. The request was denied on the basis that he had previously elected to represent himself. The Ninth Circuit found the California court's application of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wrentmore
Case #: G043770
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/20/2011

An invocation of the right to self-representation for a defendant, facing extension of commitment as a mentally disordered offender is based on a statutory right, and an error in allowing the defendant to waive counsel and represent himself is subject to review for abuse of discretion. As there was not a reasonable probability of a more favorable result such that even if there was some error in the waiver of counsel, any error here was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Powell
Case #: H034349
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/29/2011

(1) Denial of a Faretta motion for self-representation that is not timely and unequivocal is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment; (2) There is no abuse of discretion in permitting the minor victim to testify outside the presence of defendant, where substantial evidence exists that the minor victim otherwise will suffer great emotional distress (Pen. Code, sec. 1347); (3) a minor victim's description of material may provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction for violation of Penal Code section 288.2, subdivision (a) (exhibiting any harmful matter, as defined in sec. 313, to a minor). Appellant was charged with and…

View Full Summary