Denied right to represent myself

[cunundrum69]

California State Criminal Courts

I am a defendant in a criminal case, and I recently lost my trial and was convicted of a misdemeanor charge. During my pre-trial phase, I was asked by the Court if I was wanting to represent myself or hire a private attorney or wanted legal counsel appointed to me to represent me during my trial. I replied that I would like the public defender. The Court then appointed a Public Defender. After my attorney lied to me that he would submit particular evidence in a 4th amendment suppression hearing and failed to so, several weeks after this botched suppression hearing, I notified the court on the record that I was having severe personal conflict with my lawyer and I wanted to represent myself. The transcripts of that event reads as follows:

DEFENDANT: You honor, I would now like to take this opportunity to notify the court that I am having severe personal conflict with my public defender and I no longer wish to receive his services. I feel he is attempting to assist the district attorney and undermine my defense. I want to represent myself.

JUDGE: I am going to deny your motion. I remember a long time ago appointing the public defender's office because you informed me that you could not afford to hire an attorney. I am not going to relieve the public defender at this late juncture.

DEFENDANT: But your honor, I object.

JUDGE: Your request is over-ruled.

After the Court did this they scheduled a trial date and I eventually lost my trial. My questions are follows:

A.) Did I have an absolute right to represent myself? And if so, can I get my conviction reversed on appeal? (AND) from the way I described it above, does it appear that the case should be reversed based on that event?

B.) If I appeal within 30 days of the date of my conviction and achieve a reversal what is likely to happen? Would the case simply be dismissed and that would be the end of it? And would it be left up to the District Attorney to refile the case? (OR) would the conviction be reversed and the case be remanded back to the Superior Court to start over with me being my own attorney?

I guess what I am really asking is, because the case is petty misdemeanor in a very clogged up court system, is it possible that if I achieve a reversal in the appellate that the D.A. would not likely pursue the case anymore and the reversal would simply mean the end of the legal problem? Is this one possible outcome? Should I even try to get my conviction reversed on appeal if the police have create very power lies difficult to prove wrong?

 

[Proserpina]

California State Criminal Courts

I am a defendant in a criminal case, and I recently lost my trial and was convicted of a misdemeanor charge. During my pre-trial phase, I was asked by the Court if I was wanting to represent myself or hire a private attorney or wanted legal counsel appointed to me to represent me during my trial. I replied that I would like the public defender. The Court then appointed a Public Defender. After my attorney lied to me that he would submit particular evidence in a 4th amendment suppression hearing and failed to so, several weeks after this botched suppression hearing, I notified the court on the record that I was having severe personal conflict with my lawyer and I wanted to represent myself. The transcripts of that event reads as follows:

DEFENDANT: You honor, I would now like to take this opportunity to notify the court that I am having severe personal conflict with my public defender and I no longer wish to receive his services. I feel he is attempting to assist the district attorney and undermine my defense. I want to represent myself.

JUDGE: I am going to deny your motion. I remember a long time ago appointing the public defender's office because you informed me that you could not afford to hire an attorney. I am not going to relieve the public defender at this late juncture.

DEFENDANT: But your honor, I object.

JUDGE: Your request is over-ruled.

After the Court did this they scheduled a trial date and I eventually lost my trial. My questions are follows:

A.) Did I have an absolute right to represent myself? And if so, can I get my conviction reversed on appeal? (AND) from the way I described it above, does it appear that the case should be reversed based on that event?

B.) If I appeal within 30 days of the date of my conviction and achieve a reversal what is likely to happen? Would the case simply be dismissed and that would be the end of it? And would it be left up to the District Attorney to refile the case? (OR) would the conviction be reversed and the case be remanded back to the Superior Court to start over with me being my own attorney?

I guess what I am really asking is, because the case is petty misdemeanor in a very clogged up court system, is it possible that if I achieve a reversal in the appellate that the D.A. would not likely pursue the case anymore and the reversal would simply mean the end of legal problem? Is this one possible outcome? I don't think I could win the case on my own either, should I even try to get my conviction reversed?

Honestly?

On this one...trust the Judge.

You appear to have more to lose than you have to win.

 

[cunundrum69]

Honestly?

On this one...trust the Judge.

You appear to have more to lose than you have to win.

What? Are you a D.A or something?

I don't understand your response. You didn't answer any question merely suggested that I allow a Court Justice to violate my constitutional rights? How peculiar. Did you submit that reply to make it appear that someone has already answered the question therefore no one need attempt to bother answering the question?

 

[musicman654321]

The OP does have a right to represent himself; the judge is wrong! IMO

You can re-file your request as well.

You may also be able to file an additional appearance pro se & not replace your attny .. this is an option to investigate. Go to the clerk's office & ask for an appearance form .. it likely will be pre-printed with this option. This will allow you to file motions, requests, speak in court etc.

You can get your conviction overturned IF your consul has not represented you to the standards .. but showing this is almost impossible.

 

[justalayman]

part of your problem is when first asked what you wanted, you wanted a PD. That infers you do not want to or cannot represent yourself. Then, when you asked to have your PD dismissed, you then wanted to represent yourself. You would have had better luck if you asked for a different PD.

Go back and read what the judge said.

basically the judge did not remove your right to represent yourself. You refused to represent yourself. The judge merely required you continue what you started and yes, he can do that. A lot of defendants play games like you were in an attempt to try to set a basis for an appeal. (not saying you were)

So, if you think you have some grounds to appeal, go for it but it isn't that he required you to maintain an attorney to represent you.

 

[musicman654321]

A lot of defendants play games like you were in an attempt to try to set a basis for an appeal.

Oh, I'm sure judges have seen this 1000x before. They play along but will not change any trial dates etc. ... then the person who thinks he can win this games of brinksmanship finds out that its a stacked deck lol

 

[Proserpina]

What? Are you a D.A or something?

I don't understand your response. You didn't answer any question merely suggested that I allow a Court Justice to violate my constitutional rights? How peculiar. Did you submit that reply to make it appear that someone has already answered the question therefore no one need attempt to bother answering the question?

Tell you what, sport.

Go pay an attorney.

 

[cunundrum69]

but it isn't that he required you to maintain an attorney to represent you.

I totally disagree. At the beginning of the proceedings around the time of the arraignment, the judge asked me if I wanted an attorney, or if I was going to be hiring a private attorney. I chose the free attorney.
I think the case here is that the judge was using this type of logic (the fact that a P.D. was appointed at the request of the Defendant early on in the proceedings) as the basis to deny me my right to represent myself. From what I remember, is that even if the P.D. is appointed early on, a defendant can even chose to fire his attorney at, lets say, a preliminary hearing if he changes his mind, and if the court refuses it is reversible error. Here, there was a change of circumstances. I came to believe that the Public Defender was not working in my best interests and he failed to present certain evidence that I was wanting to be presented (this wasn't an issue when I accepted his services). I knew I could do a better job and therefore I wanted to represent myself. There was no ambiguity that I was wanting to be self-represented. I think I will be able to have the case reversed on this basis. Let's just say, theoretically, I get my case reversed on this basis. The next question is what will happen if I do achieve this (as asked above in the end portion of the question as follows)?

If I win in the appellate court for this reason...would the case simply be dismissed and that would be the end of it? And would it be left up to the District Attorney to refile the case? (OR) would the conviction be reversed and the case be remanded back to the Superior Court to start over with me being my own attorney?

I guess what I am really asking is, because the case is a petty misdemeanor in a very clogged up court system, is it possible that if I achieve a reversal in the appellate court that the D.A. could possibly not pursue the case anymore and the reversal would simply mean the end of the legal problem? Is this one possible outcome? Should I even try to get my conviction reversed on appeal if the police have created very powerful lies difficult to prove wrong?

 

[Zigner]

You don't have a valid basis for an appeal...so speculating what may occur after a reversal is useless.

 

[CdwJava]

If you take the matter to appeal (which you will likely have to do with an attorney out of your own pocket) the best you can hope for is that the matter is remanded back to the lower court for a new trial where you just might get your wish to represent yourself.

Do you understand that representing yourself in a criminal trial is a really, really bad idea? You will be expected to have similar knowledge of law and procedure, and comport yourself in the same manner as someone with some 7 years of education and more than that in experience.

I recall a defendant once who got his retrial, was convicted a second time and then was sentenced to a term nearly twice as long as his original term. He and his attorney objected, but they apparently forgot to realize that it is a new trial and not a chance to pick the least of the two results. So, keep that in mind.

So, start thumbing through the Yellow Pages looking for an attorney to take your matter to appeal.

 

[justalayman]

=cunundrum69;2732135]I totally disagree.

of course that is your right. You let me know how your appeal goes based on a refusal to allow you to represent yourself. I would put money on it failing.

If I win in the appellate court for this reason...would the case simply be dismissed and that would be the end of it?

the fact that you are asking if you winning your appeal would mean you will walk shows just one of many reasons you should not be acting as your own attorney.

another mistake you made in your original request was this:

You honor, I would now like to take this opportunity to notify the court that I am having severe personal conflict with my public defender and I no longer wish to receive his services.

the court doesn't care if you have a personal conflict with the PD. They don't have to like you to be able to represent you. All the court cares about is if the PD is representing you properly.

and then you continue in with this:

. I feel he is attempting to assist the district attorney and undermine my defense. I want to represent myself.

again, "I feel" is not a concern. You did not make a claim of actual improper actions or an actual question of competency (which would require proof). You felt he was doing something wrong.

So, you made no claims of inadequate assistance of counsel. Your only claim was; we don't get along.

As I said; be sure to let us know how the appeal goes. I'm betting on you losing.

 

[tranquility]

The case which found a right to represent yourself in the right to counsel section of the 6th amendment was Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806. However, one might also read a holding and some citations in the case:

It is true that, when a defendant chooses to have a lawyer manage and present his case, law and tradition may allocate to the counsel the power to make binding decisions of trial strategy in many areas. Cf. Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443, 379 U. S. 451; Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1, 384 U. S. 7; Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 372 U. S. 439. This allocation can only be justified, however, by the defendant's consent, at the outset, to accept counsel as his representative.

Once a lawyer is "accepted", one does not have the unfettered right to waive the right to counsel. Clearly the judge felt problems with the attempt to waive counsel after trial had started.

From footnote 8 of the case:

The California courts' conclusion that Faretta had no constitutional right to represent himself was made in the context of the following not unusual rules of California criminal procedure: an indigent criminal defendant has no right to appointed counsel of his choice. See Drumgo v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.3d 930, 506 P.2d 1007; People v. Miller, 7 Cal.3d 562, 574, 498 P.2d 1089, 1097; People v. Massie, 66 Cal.2d 899, 910, 428 P.2d 869, 876-877; People v. Taylor, 259 Cal.App.2d 448, 450-451, 66 Cal.Rptr. 514, 515-517. The appointed counsel manages the lawsuit, and has the final say in all but a few matters of trial strategy. See, e.g., People v. Williams, 2 Cal.3d 894, 905, 471 P.2d 1008, 1015; People v. Foster, 67 Cal.2d 604, 606-607, 432 P.2d 976, 977-978; People v. Monk, 56 Cal.2d 288, 299, 363 P.2d 865, 870-871; see generally Rhay v. Browder, 342 F.2d 345, 349 (CA9). A California conviction will not be reversed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel except in the extreme case where the quality of representation was so poor as to render the trial a "farce or a sham." People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 386 P.2d 487; see People v. Miller, supra at 573, 498 P.2d at 1096-1097; People v. Floyd, 1 Cal.3d 694, 709, 464 P.2d 64, 73; People v. Hill, 70 Cal.2d 678, 689, 452 P.2d 329, 334; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774, 415 P.2d 35, 39.

While I don't think there will be a win on appeal, if you intend to appeal, you better break out the reading glasses and start with the citations provided.

 

[Tex78704]

In order to win on appeal, you will need to establish the HARM resulting from your not defending yourself. Such that, IF NOT for your inability to defend yourself pro se, any reasonable minded person would believe your outcome would have been different.

In other words, you must convince the appeals court that if you had defended yourself, its a pretty sure bet you would have been found NOT GUILTY.

The United States Supreme Court has held “procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation itself, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978). Being denied the right to fire your court appointed attorney and represent yourself does not mean this resulted in a mistaken or unjustified outcome in your case... unless you can show otherwise.

And don't delude yourself for a moment thinking that an overburdened DA will let your case drop if you win on appeal. The DA will go out of his way to prove you wrong and seek aother conviction against you.