People v. Doss
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 378
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Doss, an incarcerated defendant with pro. per. status in another case, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and related enhancements after an in-jail incident.
- He requested and was granted Faretta self-representation (in propria persona) in this case; the county jail also granted corresponding in propria persona privileges (e.g., telephone access).
- The sheriff suspended Doss’s in propria persona privileges and the People moved to revoke his pro. per. status based on numerous incident reports alleging violent, threatening, and manipulative conduct, some specifically involving abuse of pro. per. calls.
- At hearings, the judge relied on Wilson (privilege-restriction authority) and found Doss had “abused” his privileges, revoked his Faretta status, and appointed counsel. A different judge later refused to revisit that decision.
- Doss was tried with counsel, convicted of assault and enhancements, and sentenced to a lengthy term. He appealed solely arguing the court applied the wrong legal standard in revoking his self-representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard when revoking Faretta self-representation | The court permissibly revoked status because Doss abused pro. per. privileges and posed security risks | Revocation relied on Wilson (privilege standard); court should have applied Carson/Faretta standard and considered narrower restrictions | The court applied the wrong legal standard (used Wilson instead of Carson/Faretta); remand for a proper Carson-style hearing |
| Whether revocation was permissible based on out-of-court misconduct unrelated to pro. per. privileges | Out-of-court misconduct supports revocation given security concerns and prior abuse | Revocation must focus on misconduct that threatens the core integrity of trial; unrelated out-of-court acts may not justify termination | Court did not make the necessary Carson findings about trial-impact; cannot affirm on those grounds without remand |
| Whether the court adequately considered less restrictive alternatives (e.g., limiting phone privileges) | The court considered revoking privileges in general | Doss argued court failed to consider narrowly tailored sanctions and least-burdensome measures | Court failed to sufficiently consider or record analysis of alternative, less burdensome sanctions |
| Whether post-ruling misconduct may be used to affirm revocation on appeal | AG urged the court could consider subsequent threats as justification | Doss urged appellate review limited to record at time of revocation | Remand allows trial court to consider post-ruling conduct on rehearing, but the appellate court will not itself rely on post-ruling conduct to affirm the prior flawed ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits on pro se conduct and no harmless-error rule for denial of Faretta)
- People v. Carson, 35 Cal.4th 1 (2005) (framework for revoking Faretta rights: must consider trial impact, alternatives, warnings)
- People v. Butler, 47 Cal.4th 814 (2009) (distinguishes security/privilege restrictions from revoking self-representation)
- Wilson v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 816 (1978) (authority to restrict in propria persona privileges for jail security; not the correct standard to revoke Faretta rights)