What are the grounds for dismissal of a defendant who represented himself in court?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Schmidt, A155789, A155911 (Cal. App. 2019):

Here, defendant has not demonstrated the trial court failed to exercise its discretion. When defendant requested advisory counsel "so that I can know the procedures that are proper," the trial court said, "I'm going to deny the request for advisory counsel, sir. You have the right to have an attorney, if you choose to have one, but you indicated to me that you understood the pitfalls of representing yourself. This may in fact be one of those, but advisory counsel is denied." The record shows the trial court exercised its discretion to deny defendant's request, and defendant has not shown that the court abused its discretion. (See, e.g., People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 743-744 [refusal to appoint advisory counsel would have been abuse of discretion in capital case where defendant was Canadian citizen with ninth grade education and unfamiliar with California law, and the case involved complex, unsettled legal questions].) The trial court was aware defendant had represented himself in two prior cases, including a five-month trial, defendant had two years of college education, and though defendant contends it was a "complex five count fraud case," he failed to establish the issues were particularly complex or the charges particularly serious so as to make the failure to appoint advisory counsel an abuse of discretion.

Lastly, defendant contends the court's failure to appoint advisory counsel was error under the People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, harmless error standard. Though he argues "[a] more favorable result is dismissal of the case," the grounds for dismissal he asserts are the same arguments raised and discussed above. Defendant has not shown dismissal (or any more favorable result) was likely if the trial court had appointed advisory counsel.

Page 15

In addition to the issues we have already examined, pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record to see if any other arguable issue is present. We have found none.

By entering pleas of no contest, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crimes, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that goes to the question of guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.)

There were no sentencing errors.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Page 16

/s/_________
MARGULIES, ACTING P. J.

Other Questions


Does Defendant have any grounds to argue that the Court's recent rulings in a civil case against the Defendant violated the Defendant's civil rights? (California, United States of America)
Does the Defendant have any grounds to argue that it was error to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Motion to Dismiss under section 995 of the Penal Code? (California, United States of America)
Does the denial of access to the courts by the Department of Justice to defend a civil case against a defendant who is not able to pay for a lawyer to represent him in court constitute a prima facie equal protection violation? (California, United States of America)
Is a claim for damages brought by defendant in a personal injury action brought by plaintiff against defendant in the Superior Court of Appeal against Defendant in a civil case? (California, United States of America)
Does Defendant have a claim that the trial court abused its discretion to treat Defendant as a "defendant" in a medical malpractice case? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How has the trial court treated a motion to suppress a motion by a public defender appointed to represent defendant? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant who was represented by a court-appointed counsel at trial avoid paying the court-ordered fines? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.