People v. Fletcher CA2/3

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant Shawn Allan Fletcher on one count of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664).1 In defendant’s first appeal, we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court to allow the court to reconsider defendant’s request to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta) after conducting the inquiry required under People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 (Windham). At the hearing on remand, however, defendant’s counsel did not appear, and defendant agreed to represent himself. Defendant now argues the court erred in allowing him to represent himself without first advising him of his right to counsel and the dangers of self-representation. The irony of defendant’s position does not escape us. Nevertheless, we agree with defendant and will again conditionally reverse and remand for further proceedings.

PROCEDURE AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Prior Appeal The facts of the crime are fully set forth in our prior opinion. (See People v. Fletcher (Sept. 25, 2018, B280914) [nonpub. opn.].) For purposes of this appeal, it is sufficient to note that defendant removed a bicycle that did not belong…