People v. Hurst CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel in his Wende brief asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one possible issue in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in granting Hurst his right to represent himself the day before trial began. This issue has no arguable merit. Hurst represented himself under Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. 806 after he filled out a form entitled “Acknowledgement Regarding Self-Representation of Waiver of Right to Counsel,” and after the court reviewed the Faretta waiver form with Hurst. The court explained the disadvantages of self-

3 representation and urged Hurst to allow trial counsel to continue to represent

him. Hurst insisted on representing himself.2 Defendants have a constitutional right to defend themselves if they elect to do so in a timely, unequivocal, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent fashion. (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-836.) “On appeal, we independently examine the entire record to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right…