People v. Whitfield CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 1, 2015 No. F069233Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by granting the defendant's motion for self-representation without providing the necessary admonitions or ensuring the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

Issues

Whether the trial court failed to adequately advise the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation before granting his Faretta motion.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court gave no admonitions, asked no questions, and failed to obtain a written waiver from defendant. The record does not demonstrate that defendant intelligently and knowingly waived his right to counsel.”

“We agree that the record as a whole fails to demonstrate that defendant understood the disadvantages of self-representation, including the risks and complexities of his case.”

Filed 12/1/15 P. v. Whitfield CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069233 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F14900574) v.

MICHAEL WHITFIELD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge. Dawn Schock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Defendant Michael Whitfield was convicted by no contest plea of burglary. On appeal, he contends the trial court completely failed to advise him of the dangers of representing himself before granting his Faretta1 motion and thus we must reverse and remand. The People concede and we agree. BACKGROUND On January 17, 2014, defendant was charged with burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666). The complaint also included various special allegations. On January 28, 2014, defendant appeared with defense counsel to withdraw his plea. Defendant pled no contest to the burglary count and admitted one prior strike conviction allegation and one prior prison term allegation. He filled out and signed a plea form on which he noted a five-year lid. After defendant answered the court’s questions regarding his plea and the rights he was giving up, the court accepted the plea. On February 28, 2014, at the sentencing hearing, defendant requested to represent himself, as follows:

“THE COURT: Is there any legal cause why judgment should not now be pronounced?

“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is. I might want to represent myself. I’m filling out the paper right now.

“THE COURT: And the Court has also read and considered a letter from [defendant]. [¶] So are you ready to proceed?

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I’m ready. I don’t know if—[defendant] is asking—

People v. Whitfield CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief