People v. Miller

California Court of Appeal Sep 17, 1980 No. Crim. 34593Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who is free of mental disorders impairing the decision to waive counsel and who understands the dangers of self-representation may exercise their constitutional right to represent themselves. A subsequent finding of incompetency at a later stage of proceedings does not retroactively invalidate a valid waiver of counsel made during trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting the defendant to represent herself despite claims of incompetency.
Whether a subsequent finding of incompetency at the probation hearing necessitates a finding of incompetency during the trial period.
Whether the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the standard of acceptable waiver is met if the trial court makes the factual determination that the defendant is free of the type of mental disorder which would impair a decision to waive counsel.”

“While bizarre actions and statements are to be noted, they do not establish incompetency warranting deprivation of the right to represent oneself”

Opinion

STEPHENS, J.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of unlawfully taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 and escape from lawful custody in violation of Penal Code section 4532.

There is no issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions and the facts do not materially aid in the consideration of the issues on appeal, hence, no recitation of facts is required.

Defendant contends she was incompetent to stand trial, and should not have been permitted to represent herself.

The starting point is

Faretta

California

(1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525], for it was that case that held that a defendant has a constitutional right to represent himself. The accused must, of course, knowingly and intentionally relinquish the benefits gen

[331]

erally associated with the right to a licensed counsel.

The skill of an attorney is not a prerequisite to an intelligent waiver; however, the defendant “should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’”

(Id.

at p. 835 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 582], quoting

Adam

United States

ex rel.

McCann

(1942) 317 U.S. 269, 279 [87 L.Ed. 268, 275, 63 S.Ct. 236, 143 A.L.R. 435].) In

People v. Miller

AI Brief

STEPHENS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief