People v. Hooker CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Nov 15, 2021 No. B307450Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's misstatement of the defendant's maximum possible sentence during the Faretta advisement process rendered the waiver of the right to counsel not knowing and intelligent, requiring reversal.

Issues

Whether a trial court that elects to inform a defendant of the maximum sentence during a Faretta waiver must do so accurately.
Whether the trial court's 15-year underestimate of the defendant's maximum sentence was harmless error.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question here is whether a trial court that elects to inform the defendant of the maximum sentence must do so accurately. We conclude the answer is yes.”

“By misinforming Hooker that his maximum possible sentence was 17 years when he actually faced up to 32 years, the court deprived him the opportunity to meaningfully understand one of the most crucial “risks . . . of [his] particular case[ ]””

“The trial court’s 15-year underestimate of Hooker’s maximum possible sentence was constitutional error because it fundamentally interfered with his ability to knowingly and intelligently understand the potential consequences of waiving his right to counsel.”

Filed 11/15/21 P. v. Hooker CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B307450

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA479490 v.

EZRA HOOKER, Sr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael D. Abzug, Judge. Reversed. James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Ezra Hooker of assault with a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, felon in possession of a firearm, and elder abuse, and found firearm and prior conviction allegations true. The trial court sentenced him to 23 years in state prison. On appeal, Hooker argues his waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing and intelligent because the trial court estimated his maximum possible sentence at 17 years when his actual maximum possible sentence was 32 years. For the reasons discussed below, we agree. We therefore reverse the judgment.1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging Hooker with assault with a firearm (Pen. Code,2 § 245, subd. (a)(2); count one); unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count two); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count three); and elder or dependent adult abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1); count four). With respect to counts one and four, the information alleged Hooker personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5) and sustained a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). With respect to all counts, the information alleged Hooker sustained a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and four

People v. Hooker CA2/4

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B307450

INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION4

C. Analysis

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief