People v. Rodriguez CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 9, 2015D067011California1,624 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. Faretta Motion

Under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, defendants have a

right to represent themselves in criminal trials. (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 819.) A

trial court must grant a defendant's motion for self-representation if the request is

knowing, intelligent, unequivocal, and timely, that is, made within "a reasonable time

Faretta v. California (1974) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). 3 prior to the commencement of trial." (People v. Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 721, 722.)

A knowing, intelligent, and unequivocal motion made after this period is addressed to the

sound discretion of the trial court. (People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 98 (Clark).) In

exercising its discretion, the court should consider factors such as "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."

(People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128, 129 (Windham).) To determine whether

the defendant properly invoked…

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.