People v. Holtzen CA3
Filed 1/10/25 P. v. Holtzen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----
THE PEOPLE, C098250
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR1805)
v.
ANDREW SCOTT HOLTZEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Andrew Scott Holtzen appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to represent himself (see Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806). He argues his request was timely and unequivocal. The People concede the error. We reverse.
1
BACKGROUND As the underlying facts of the charged crimes have no bearing on the issues presented on appeal, we do not recite them here. An information charged defendant with two counts of sodomy by force (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (c)(2)(A))1 and injury to a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The information also alleged defendant had suffered one prior strike. Defendant initially pleaded not guilty to all charges. Eight days prior to trial, during a trial readiness hearing, defendant made an oral motion to represent himself pursuant to Faretta and provided the court with an executed form petition to proceed in propria persona. Defendant also prepared but did not file a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Invoke My 6th Amendment Right to Self- Representation,” citing Faretta. The following colloquy took place between the trial court and defendant: “THE COURT: [S]ir, you understand that there is an old saying in the law that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. Have you ever heard that before? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes. “THE COURT: And if that’s the old saying as to an attorney, with a legal degree and experience, how much worse off is it for someone who is not an attorney to represent himself? “THE DEFENDANT: God only knows, sir. I have all the paperwork already signed out for you right here.” “THE COURT: [S]ir, I’ve been provided with a Petition to Proceed in Pro Per, otherwise known as a Faretta waiver form. Did you sign these forms? “[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes, your Honor. “[THE COURT]: And did you place your initials next to statements on this form?
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)