People v. Brodie CA3

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 2021 No. C092107Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for self-representation because the motions were untimely and the defendant's persistent, disruptive behavior provided a reasonable basis to believe he would obstruct the trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's Faretta requests for self-representation.
Whether the defendant's requests for self-representation were unequivocal.
Whether the defendant's disruptive conduct and the untimeliness of his requests justified the denial of self-representation.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no error and affirm the judgment.”

“The trial court also repeatedly emphasized that this was a “no time waiver” case and therefore trial had to commence as scheduled.”

“The trial court stated that it was denying defendant’s request because he was acting out, disruptive, and engaging in inappropriate behavior.”

Filed 8/25/21 P. v. Brodie CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Plumas) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092107

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F1900607)

VICTOR LAURANCE BRODIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant, Victor Laurance Brodie, was convicted of first-degree residential burglary and possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm. Prior to trial, defendant made comments to the trial court about wanting to represent himself. Defendant contends these were unequivocal requests pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta), and that the trial court erred in failing to substantively address and summarily denying these requests. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The substantive facts underlying the convictions are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal and are therefore not recounted here. Defendant was convicted of first-degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)). At the trial readiness conference, 18 days before trial, defendant made a People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) motion contending he had obtained new counsel and had “fired” his appointed counsel. The trial court held a hearing in a closed session during which defendant argued: “THE DEFENDANT: Ken VanDervoort is my attorney. “THE COURT: Right, and he’s not here. “THE DEFENDANT: Right because I did not know this hearing was taking place. I thought the trial was set for the 11th. “THE COURT: We have a trial coming up, so I’m not going to relieve Mr. Osborne unless your attorney - - “THE DEFENDANT: Please do because I fired him twice. Can you call - - “THE COURT: Well, you can’t fire him. “THE DEFENDANT: I have to. “THE COURT: Either you are represented by another attorney and I have to have that attorney here or you represent yourself - - “THE DEFENDANT: Then I’ll represent myself. “THE COURT: - - which is always not a good idea on a felony case when you have a trial coming up in two weeks.” After further argument about counsel’s performance relevant to the Marsden issue, the court denied defendant’s motion, stating: “Well, I’m going to deny this Marsden

People v. Brodie CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C092107

VICTOR LAURANCE BRODIE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

HULL, J.

RAYE, P. J.

BLEASE, J.

AI Brief