SOUKOMLANE

People v. SOUKOMLANE

Good Law
162 Cal. App. 4th 214·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 598·75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 2008F052781California9,013 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gomes, J.

*217 Opinion

Appellant Thavone Soukomlane appeals from his conviction of willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia after a jury trial at which he represented himself. He argues that the trial court’s ordering him shackled without taking precautions to keep the jury from hearing and seeing his shackles constituted an abuse of discretion requiring reversal of the judgment. Additionally, he argues that the trial court’s ordering him removed from the courtroom to a back room where he could not hear part of the prosecutor’s examination of a key witness against him constituted a reversible denial of his constitutional right to counsel. On both grounds, we will reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the wee hours of the morning of January 21, 2007, four police officers were dispatched to a motel in Tulare after Soukomlane made a “911 hang up with mention of a gun” call. After hearing a woman shout, “He’s going to kill me,” from a room at the motel, officers forced the door and saw Soukomlane and his wife naked on the floor, screaming unintelligibly, and blood on the curtains, the floor, and the walls. Officers…

Concurring Opinion

Cornell, J.

I agree completely with the opinion of my colleagues. I write separately to suggest steps a trial judge could consider when faced with the difficult circumstances presented by a propria persona defendant in a felony case.

First, appoint standby counsel, not cocounsel or advisory counsel. The appointment should be made at the time propria persona status is granted. Standby counsel should be prepared to substitute in at any time. This means that standby counsel should receive all discovery and attend all hearings. Having standby counsel allows the trial judge to control a disruptive defendant by terminating his or her propria persona status and continuing with the hearing or trial. This suggestion may be resisted as too expensive. But, for example, had it been done here, the time and expense of a new trial may have been avoided.

*236 Second, do not shackle a propria persona defendant. At the time propria persona status is granted, the trial judge should explain to the defendant the conduct expected in the courtroom. This could include admonitions about interrupting or acting out. The defendant should be told that his or her right to self-representation could be forfeited by…

Opinion

Appellant Thavone Soukomlane appeals from his conviction of willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia after a jury trial at which he represented himself. He argues that the trial court's ordering him shackled without taking precautions to keep the jury from hearing and seeing his shackles constituted an abuse of discretion requiring reversal of the judgment. Additionally, he argues that the trial court's ordering him removed from the courtroom to a back room where he could not hear part of the prosecutor's examination of a key witness against him constituted a reversible denial of his constitutional right to counsel. On both grounds, we will reverse the judgment. [1]

In the wee hours of the morning of January 21, "2007, four police officers were dispatched to a motel in Tulare after Soukomlane made a "911 hang up with mention of a gun" call. After hearing a woman shout, "He's going to kill me," from a room at the motel, officers forced the door and saw Soukomlane and his wife naked on the floor, screaming unintelligibly, and blood on the curtains, the floor, and the walls. Officers characterized him as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.