People v. Potter

California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 1978 No. Crim. 16315Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge properly inquired into the defendant's request for new counsel, that the defendant did not make an unequivocal request for self-representation, and that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general intent crimes like rape and sodomy.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's request for new counsel without further inquiry?
Did the trial court deny the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation?
Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication as a defense to rape and sodomy?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The present record, quoted above bears no resemblance to the Marsden situation. Here, the court did not refuse to hear specific complaints.”

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

William Gail Potter appeals from a judgment of imprisonment which was rendered after a jury found him guilty of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261).

Appellant was arrested' shortly after he had, while intoxicated, broken into an apartment where he beat, raped and committed sodomy upon a mentally retarded and partially blind woman.

Appellant testified that a woman invited him into her room and “that’s the last thing I remember ’til I was arrested.”

Appellant contends, citing

People

Marsden

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44], that the court should have inquired further before rejecting a request by appellant to discharge appointed counsel and have new counsel appointed. The incident complained of, which occurred at the beginning of the trial, is reflected in the following passage from the record:

“The Court: Mr. Potter, what is your problem?

“The Defendant: The other problem is I was wondering if the court was aware that I had a motion sent down for motion to fire Joe Allen.

“The Court: What do you want?

“The- Defendant: Because I don’t feel Pm going to get an adequate case.

[48]

“The Court: On what basis do you make that claim?

“The Defendant: On the basis I feel there is prejudice.

“The Court: Do you have any evidence to support your feeling?

“The Defendant: No, I don’t, your Honor, except that we just had a little misunderstanding up there in the jail just a minute ago, and I don’t want Mr. Joe Allen as my attorney. And before, I have not talked to him, I have not seen him very many times as to the things of my case; and I don’t feel that I’m going to get an adequate defense.

People v. Potter

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief