Lopez

*570 Opinion

In this case we explore the responsibilities of the trial court in making an adequate record that a criminal defendant “voluntarily and intelligently” elects to represent himself under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ].

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of heroin. Criminal proceedings were suspended and he was committed to CRC. Criminal proceedings were then reinstituted and he was sentenced to prison.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) that the sentence to prison violated the terms of his plea bargain, and (2) that the record does not indicate that he voluntarily and intelligently elected to represent himself at the sentencing procedure following his return from CRC. (He had previously been represented by the public defender.) Because the latter is the weightier of the two issues, we consider it first.

The entire record on this issue is as follows:

Following the Faretta holding that a requirement of legal competence to represent oneself was an invalid restriction on a defendant’s constitu *571 tionally protected right of self-representation, our Supreme Court in People v. Windham, 19 Cal.3d 121 at page 128 [ 137 Cal.Rptr.…

Under compulsion of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ], I concur in the judgment and the remand for resentence.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 1, 1977.

In this case we explore the responsibilities of the trial court in making an adequate record that a criminal defendant "voluntarily and intelligently" elects to represent himself under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ].

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of heroin. Criminal proceedings were suspended and he was committed to CRC. Criminal proceedings were then reinstituted and he was sentenced to prison.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) that the sentence to prison violated the terms of his plea bargain, and (2) that the record does not indicate that he voluntarily and intelligently elected to represent himself at the sentencing procedure following his return from CRC. (He had previously been represented by the public defender.) Because the latter is the weightier of the two issues, we consider it first.

The entire record on this issue is as follows:

After the public defender had indicated that the defendant wished to represent himself, the following transpired:

"THE COURT: Well, does he want to represent himself?

"[DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Mr. Lopez wants to represent himself. He has a right to represent…