People v. Whitmer CA3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Faretta motion because his request to represent himself was unequivocal. He also contends the court erred in denying him the right to renew the motion. We need not decide whether defendant’s request to represent himself was unequivocal because such a request must also not be the product of annoyance or frustration (People v. Watts (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 621, 629), and here defendant’s immediate outburst at the denial of his Marsden motion shows his request for self- representation was only a product of his annoyance and frustration. Moreover, we conclude defendant was not prevented from renewing his Faretta motion. A defendant in a criminal case possesses two constitutional rights with respect to representation that are mutually exclusive. A defendant has the right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution. (United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 223-227 [18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155-1157].) At the same time, a defendant possesses the right to represent himself because the Sixth Amendment grants to the accused personally the right to present a defense. (Faretta v.…