 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Allen6/12/2002
ced district attorney. The trial court ascertained that appellant was a high school graduate.
Appellant's responses included repeated statements that he wanted to represent himself, disclosure of the two defense witnesses he planned to call, that he gave up his right to have appointed counsel represent him, and that he understood the admonitions, including that he could not claim ineffective assistance on appeal. The trial court found appellant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appointed counsel and had asserted his right to represent himself, concluding, "So, accordingly, I will confer upon [appellant] pro per status."
The trial court stated it was considering appointing the defense counsel as "back-up counsel." It explained that counsel "just sits in the courtroom, doesn't mess with you, but he just sits here." Appellant responded: "That will be fine." The trial court later learned that the Office of Public Defender believed it was inappropriate to accept appointment in that capacity because such counsel would serve at the pleasure of a defendant, and there was authority that such appointment could not be compelled. The trial court stated it would not appoint the deputy public defender as backup counsel and would not appoint anyone else in that capacity because no other attorney was familiar with the case and ready to go forward. The deputy public defender reported he had given appellant all pertinent information and that all defense witnesses had been subpoenaed. Appellant announced he was ready, and the jury entered the courtroom.
Appellant first argues that his waiver of his right to appointed counsel was involuntary because it had not been "knowingly and intelligently" made. (Faretta v.California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 836.)
He asserts he did not understand the "risks and complexities" of the case and the disadvantages of self-representation. (People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1225.) Appellant also argues he never understood that his appointed counsel was engaged in a strategy when he declined to impeach Officer Faciane at the evidence hearing. The record does not support appellant's arguments.
In various statements, appellant informed the trial court he was a high school graduate who owned two houses and held a good job. He detailed the efforts he had already made in his own defense, including directly contacting the tow-truck driver who had taken his van to the impound yard and a person connected to the shop that had repaired his vehicle. Appellant also announced that he had obtained the same documentation from the Department of Motor Vehicles as had his counsel.
With respect to the discrepancies appellant had perceived in Officer Faciane's testimony at the evidentiary hearing as compared to his own recollection of events, both his counsel and the trial court explained that there had been a tactical decision not to address the issue at that time. After hearing the explanation, appellant continued to express his displeasure with his counsel but made no indication he did not understand the explanation. Rather, he was concerned about the persuasiveness of the officer on the witness stand and indicated he would choose to examine him on the alleged discrepancies. Furthermore, the record is replete with cautions by the trial court as to the disadvantages of self-representation. Appellant repeatedly indicated he understood the statements of the trial court and was prepared to go forward. The record supports the finding of the trial court that appellant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appointed counsel (Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 836), the conclusion that the trial court adequ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|