Espitia

Espitia v. Ortiz

Good Law
113 F. App'x 802
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 4, 2004No. 01-55879California992 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Joe Garcia Espitia was charged in California state court with carjacking, and the complaint alleged that this conviction would be his third strike under California’s sentencing law because he had prior felony convictions. Five months before trial, Espitia discharged his public defender and elected to proceed pro se pursuant to Far etta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). He later retained a lawyer, but then discharged him the month before trial. On at least four occasions before trial, Espitia complained to the trial court that the jail was not giving him access to a law library. Despite court orders, he did not receive law library access before trial.

Four days before trial, the State filed an amended information which added two lesser-included offenses of carjacking (robbery and auto theft) and lengthened the list of Espitia’s alleged prior felony convictions. April 8, 1997, was the last permissible day for trial to begin under California’s speedy-trial law because Espitia had steadfastly refused to waive his right to a speedy trial. On that day, the trial court arraigned him on the amended information, re-advised him of his…

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.