212 Cal. App. 4th 150
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bauer pled guilty to lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 in 2010 and was placed on five years' probation with conditions and sex offender registration.
- Six weeks after sentencing, Bauer allegedly violated probation and was arraigned on the violation; he represented himself and his right to counsel was not shown to have been advised.
- At the probation violation hearing, the court noted a potential absconding violation and allowed Bauer to contest, with evidence of contact with a minor in a public setting as a probation violation.
- The court found sufficient evidence of contact with a minor but not for absconding; it ordered a 90-day evaluation under 1203.03 and continued sentencing.
- A separate sentencing hearing occurred about three months later; Bauer represented himself and was not shown to have been advised of right to appointed counsel or dangers of self-representation.
- The court ultimately denied probation and sentenced Bauer to six years in state prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at probation revocation and deferred sentencing | Bauer did not receive counsel advisement at revocation/sentencing. | prior advisements in the initial proceeding sufficed under Crayton; readvisement not required. | Reversed conditionally; error requires remand for proper admonishments and waiver. |
| Effect of Crayton readvisement on this case | Crayton shows readvisement required when rights aren’t previously addressed. | Crayton applies only within a unified proceeding; here probation revocation is distinct. | Crayton not controlling; due process requires separate advisement at these hearings. |
| Remedy for the right-to-counsel error | Higher chance of prejudice if counsel not provided at revocation/sentencing. | Harmless error standard should apply if record shows waiver or awareness. | Reversal conditioned on Bauer electing counsel; otherwise reimposition of probation/six-year sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Crayton, 28 Cal.4th 346 (Cal. 2002) (readvisement not required absent statutory mandate; waiver continuity)
- People v. Hall, 218 Cal.App.3d 1102 (Cal. App. 1990) (right to counsel at probation revocation/deferred sentencing; Faretta warnings needed)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process right to counsel at probation revocation; case-by-case basis)
- In re Reno, 55 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2012) (recognizes right to counsel at probation revocation proceedings)
- In re Turrieta, 54 Cal.2d 816 (Cal. 1960) (earlier admonishments do not substitute for later readvisement)
- People v. Sohrab, 59 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. App. 1997) (distinguishes situations where readvisement is required)
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires notice, evidence disclosure, opportunity to be heard)