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.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.