Kenneth Crandell v. Bill J. Bunnell, Warden Attorney General of California

PER CURIAM; Dissent by Judge BRUNETTI.

Kenneth Crandell represented himself in capital proceedings in California state court. He was convicted of two counts of murder, each with a special circumstance of multiple murders, as well as kidnapping and assault with intent to commit rape. 1 Crandell brought a federal habeas petition claiming his state conviction was flawed by numerous constitutional errors, each involving his right to counsel and each demanding reversal. The district court denied his petition; we review de novo. Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1987).

Crandell claims he did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel and elect self-representation in the municipal court proceedings. This is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo. United States v. Robinson, 913 F.2d 712, 714 (9th Cir.1990).

On July 9, 1990, Crandell was arraigned in municipal court and a public defender was appointed to represent him. A few weeks later, Crandell appeared before the court with counsel, and the court ordered his preliminary hearing continued to October 20, 1980. Crandell next appeared in court on September 19 — this time alone — to argue a number of pro…

dissenting:

Because I believe Crandell knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel in the municipal court proceedings, I respectfully dissent. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to waive counsel and represent himself if he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily elects to do so).

The first requirement for a valid waiver of counsel is that the “request to forego the assistance of counsel must be unequivocal.” United States v. Robinson, 913 F.2d 712, 714 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1104 , 111 S.Ct. 1006 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1089 (1991). A *756 defendant’s statements are not equivocal simply because they are conditional. See Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir.1989) (defendant’s repeated statements that he wanted to represent himself if the only alternative was the appointment of a certain attorney constituted a valid waiver, since although “his requests no doubt were conditional, they were not equivocal”) (emphasis in original); see also Robinson, 913 F.2d at 714 (defendant’s request to proceed pro se not equivocal because “some of [the defendant’s]…

25 F.3d 754 Kenneth CRANDELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bill J. BUNNELL, Warden; Attorney General of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-55307. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 30, 1993. Decided May 25, 1994. John W. Poulos, Davis, CA, for petitioner-appellant Kenneth Crandell. David Glassman, Leslie P. McElroy, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, CA, for respondents-appellees Bill J. Bunnell and Atty. Gen. of California. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI and BOGGS, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM; Dissent by Judge BRUNETTI. PER CURIAM. 1 Kenneth Crandell represented himself in capital proceedings in California state court. He was convicted of two counts of murder, each with a special circumstance of multiple murders, as well as kidnapping and assault with intent to commit rape. 1 Crandell brought a federal habeas petition claiming his state conviction was flawed by numerous constitutional errors, each involving his right to counsel and each demanding reversal. The district court denied his petition; we review de novo. Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 185 (9th…