Tooby's California Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

(A)

In General.  The great majority of convictions occur in cases in which the defendant was represented by counsel.  Generally speaking, it is only in more minor cases that the court will take a waiver of the right to counsel, and allow the defendant to represent himself or herself.  It is usually more difficult to set aside a conviction in a case in which a defendant was in propria personam, since no claims of ineffective assistance of counsel can be raised, so long as the court adequately took a waiver of the right to counsel.

            While a criminal defendant may choose to represent himself or herself in a criminal proceeding, the waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing and voluntary.[22]

If a defendant chooses to represent himself, however, his decision must be made knowingly and intelligently; that is, a criminal defendant must be aware of the nature of the charges against him, the possible penalties, and the dangers and disadvantages of self‑representation, before his decision to waive counsel will be knowing and intelligent.[23]

The California Supreme Court has explained that the requirements for a valid waiver of the right to counsel are: (1) a determination that the defendant is competent to waive the right, i.e., that s/he has the mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings; and (2) a finding that the waiver is knowing and voluntary.  While specific warnings are not needed to demonstrate a knowing waiver, the record as a whole must demonstrate that the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. 

            Relief was denied where there was no confusion on the defendant's part regarding the risks of self-representation and he had prior experience of six trials.[24] A defendant's history of mental illness was also found not to invalidate the waiver of the right to counsel when the defendant chose to represent himself.[25]

[22] Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).  The Ninth Circuit has held that the court cannot refuse to allow self-representation on a finding that the defendant will be incompetent as his own lawyer.  United States v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516, (9th Cir. 1994).

[23] United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 (1984); United States v. Harris, 683 F.2d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1982).

[24] People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102.

[25] See People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041 (defendant’s mental illness and court’s failure to caution that self-representation may be “ultimately to his own detriment” not cause for reversal).