People v. Prieto CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for self-representation. A criminal defendant has an absolute right to self-representation if an unequivocal assertion of that right is made a reasonable time prior to commencement of trial. (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 127-128 (Windham).) However, once a defendant has chosen to proceed to trial with representation, a request for self-representation is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. (Id. at p. 128.) In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including “the quality of counsel’s representation of the defendant, the defendant’s prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion.” (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128.) However, the

3 trial court need not explicitly consider these factors if there are sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of the factors. (People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206.) Such is…