People v. Whitmer CA3

California Court of Appeal Nov 12, 2014 No. C073617Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly denied the defendant's Faretta motion because the request was an impulsive product of frustration following the denial of a Marsden motion rather than an unequivocal, well-considered assertion of the right to self-representation.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's Faretta motion for self-representation.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant the opportunity to renew his Faretta motion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the denial of defendant’s Faretta motion was correct because his request was an ill-considered decision that was a function of annoyance and frustration.”

“the timing of defendant’s Faretta motion shows defendant’s focus was on new appointed counsel rather than waiver of his right to counsel altogether.”

“the record shows neither: (1) that defendant intended to renew his Faretta motion; nor (2) that any further attempt to renew his Faretta motion would have been futile.”

Filed 11/12/14 P. v. Whitmer CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073617

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF12623)

BRAD ALLEN WHITMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Brad Allen Whitmer guilty of evading a police officer, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, and resisting a peace officer.1 The trial court sentenced him to nine years and four months in prison. On appeal, defendant contends

1 He was found not guilty of possessing burglary tools.

the trial court erred in denying his Faretta2 motion and also erred in denying him the right to renew the motion. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 31, 2012, the Yuba County District Attorney’s Office charged defendant with felony evading a police officer, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, and resisting a peace officer. A week later, on November 7, 2012, the trial court held a Marsden3 hearing. At the hearing, defendant asked the court to find him another attorney who would work with him and be respectful. Defendant felt that his attorney did not have “[his] best interests at hand to represent [him].” When the court declined to assign defendant another attorney, defendant stated, “Oh, my God” and told the court that he would represent himself. The court admonished defendant, “you need to let the lawyer represent you,” to which defendant replied, “I don’t want him representing me. [¶] I’ll represent myself.” The following exchange then occurred: “THE COURT: Don’t listen to the folks in the jail -- “THE DEFENDANT: I’ll represent myself. “THE COURT: -- because, obviously, somebody gave you bad advice. “THE DEFENDANT: I’m giving myself advice. I don’t want him representing me -- “THE COURT: Mr. Whitmer -- “THE DEFENDANT: -- period. “THE COURT: -- they tell us in law school not to represent ourselves, even if we get accused of a crime, because a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. So if that -- “THE DEFENDANT: I’ll be my own client.

People v. Whitmer CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C073617

BRAD ALLEN WHITMER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUTZ , J.

HOCH , J.

AI Brief