People v. Matthews CA2/5

DISCUSSION

Denial of Advisory Counsel

We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request for advisory counsel. Instead we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request, in light of the psychiatric reports regarding defendant’s competency to stand trial, his repeated encounters with the criminal justice system for minor crimes, his educational background, and the relative simplicity of the case. Although the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant both the right to be represented by counsel and the right to self-representation, a defendant who chooses to represent himself does not have a constitutional right to advisory counsel. (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 723, overruled on other grounds by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919; see also People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1162 [“A criminal accused has only two constitutional rights with respect to his legal representation, and they are mutually exclusive. He may choose to be represented by professional counsel, or he may knowingly and intelligently elect to assume his own representation”].) The decision to appoint…