Coppola

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Coppola’s Faretta waiver was invalid because the court failed to ensure that he understood the possible penalties he faced at the time of the waiver. See United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir.2004).

This court therefore REVERSES and REMANDS for a new trial.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Circuit Judge, concurring:

I join the court’s disposition because I am required to do so by the law of this circuit. United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Forrester, 495 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2007). Were I writing on a clean slate, I would follow the more enlightened view articulated in Judge Kozinski’s concurrence to United States v. Balough, 820 F.2d 1485, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1987), rejecting the “rote recitation of mechanical formulas ... [which] [a]ppellate judges are fond of inventing ... to constrain trial courts.” Id. I am satisfied on the record as a whole that Coppola knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. But until the Supreme Court corrects the error of our mechanistic ways, I must abide the law of my circuit.