June 3, 2005
Judge's Advice to Pro Per Nullifies Conviction
In California, a judge must explicitly warn a defendant of the pitfalls of self representation before the defendant's waiver of his constitutional right to counsel can be valid. In People v. Nagy, the judge instead said the following:
“I have to go over certain criteria regarding whether or not I’ll give you the right to represent yourself. I mean, you do have the right. I’ve never been one to believe what the appellate courts say that somehow I follow it, but I sometimes wonder if they really know what they are saying when I have to go over and try to convince you not to do this since it’s a constitutional right, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court in Faretta versus California. And since it is such a right I don’t know why I have to try to talk you out of it. In fact, sometimes I try to not to encourage defendant’s to do so [sic], but I think it is in your best interest to do so. You’ll feel better about yourself. You’ll feel better about the case. You get to ask the questions you want to ask. . . ."
The defendant had been sentenced to seven years for vehicle theft. But today the Sixth District Court of Appeal said: "[H]ere, where defendant proceeded to trial without a lawyer and without a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, he is entitled to an automatic reversal of his convictions." The unpublished opinion is here.
