Denial of Motion to Withdraw Faretta Waiver Structural Error

In a serious drug prosecution, the defendant asserted his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. During jury selection he changed his mind and asked the trial court to appoint counsel on his behalf. The trial court denied that request as well as a second one.

Although criminal defendants do not have an absolute right to withdraw Faretta waivers and reassert the right to counsel, under the circumstances of this case, Division Seven of the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for counsel on the first day of trial.

The trial court denied the defendant's second request to withdraw his Faretta waiver because it found that the jury had already been selected and sworn, the delay would be disruptive to the codefendant, and the defendant's prior attorney was still engaged in trial and unavailable. The Court of Appeal deemed these reasons insufficient because there was "no indication in this record [the defendant] was attempting to manipulate the right to counsel for any improper purpose. [The defendant's] stated reason for requesting counsel was legitimate: He realized immediately after the proceedings commenced he was incapable of understanding the proceedings and conducting a defense."

Upon finding an abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeal went on to hold that "[b]ecause deprivation of counsel at a critical stage of a criminal trial is federal constitutional error that affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, 'with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate,' the error is structural and reversal is required without analysis of prejudicial effect." In applying the federal structural error standard found in Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 282, the Court of Appeal rejected the approach adopted by several other California Courts of Appeal that have analyzed the error under the harmless error standard articulated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 for state law errors.

According to the Court of Appeal, "while a violation of the right to the effective assistance of counsel, derived from the Sixth Amendment’s purpose of ensuring a fair trial, generally requires a defendant to establish prejudice, the right to select counsel of one’s choice . . . has been regarded as 'the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee': 'Deprivation of the right is "complete" when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received.'” Therefore, the denial of the defendant's request to withdraw his Faretta waiver was structural error.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss.

People v. Lawrence, no. B193831 (Cal.Ct.App. (2nd Dist., Div. Seven) filed 1/2/2008)