United States v. Jose Hernandez-Velazquez

MEMORANDUM

D efendant-App ellant Jose Hernandez-Velazquez appeals his jury conviction of four counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (a). Hernandez-Velazquez asserts the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it permitted him to proceed pro se without ensuring that his waiver of his right to counsel was “knowing and intelligent.” We review the validity of a waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel de novo, United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 506 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm.

“[T]o deem a defendant’s Faretta waiver knowing and intelligent, the district court must insure that [the defendant] understands 1) the nature of the charges against him, 2) the possible penalties, and 3) the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Hernandez-Velazquez concedes that “the district court convincingly and thoroughly warned [him] about the dangers of self-representation.” However, Hernandez-Velazquez argues that his waiver of counsel was not “knowing and intelligent” because the district court failed to inform him of the nature of the charges against him and the possible…