People v. Fedalizo, 246 Cal. App. 4th 98

Background

In 2014 Fedalizo (self-represented) pleaded no contest to several felonies and was placed on probation; he later committed a probation-violating offense and pleaded in a later-filed case.
He negotiated pleas and was sentenced to an aggregate three-year county-jail term across two cases.
After Proposition 47, Fedalizo filed pro se petitions in both cases to reduce eligible felonies to misdemeanors.
At the March 5, 2015 hearing, a deputy public defender appeared; the minute order and reporter’s transcript state the deputy waived Fedalizo’s appearance and the court granted the Proposition 47 petition in the KA103656 case and resentenced him in absentia to consecutive 364-day terms (totaling three years), to run concurrently with other misdemeanor terms.
Fedalizo later appealed, arguing the court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment Faretta right to self-representation and his right to be present at resentencing. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding waiver/implied consent and that the absence was properly waived under the circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Fedalizo)	Held
Whether Fedalizo was denied the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation at the Proposition 47 resentencing	The record shows counsel appeared and Fedalizo waived presence/consented to representation; any Faretta rights were waived or abandoned	Fedalizo contends he continued to represent himself, was never appointed counsel for this petition, and never waived Faretta rights	Court held Faretta right was waived/impliedly abandoned; counsel’s appearance and representations supported presumption of authority, so no reversible error
Whether Fedalizo’s absence at resentencing violated his constitutional/statutory right to be present	Trial court could rely on counsel’s representation waiving appearance under §977(a); eligibility and the court’s action were legal determinations that did not require defendant’s presence	Fedalizo argues he never knowingly waived presence and had no opportunity to argue for concurrent rather than consecutive terms	Court held defendant forfeited belated argument and, on the merits, counsel’s representation and statutory provisions permitted judgment pronounced in absence for misdemeanor resentencing with valid waiver/implied consent
Whether the trial court was required to confirm appointment/authorization of counsel from the defendant on the record before proceeding	Procedural flexibility permitted appointment/representation without redundant in-court confirmation; presumption of attorney authority applies	Fedalizo argues lack of express appointment/authorization in the record makes any in-court waiver invalid	Court applied presumption of counsel authority and appellant’s burden to show error; found no record evidence counsel acted without authority
Whether any claimed denial of rights is subject to harmless-error review	People assert no reversible error because defendant acquiesced/forfeited and record supports sentence	Fedalizo argues structural or Chapman-level constitutional error (Faretta/right-to-presence) that is not harmless	Court treated Faretta/absence as waived and forfeited; affirmed judgment (did not reverse as structural error)

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (establishes standard for knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (self-representation right may be waived or limited by a defendant’s conduct and by counsel participation)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (courts must indulge every reasonable inference against waiver of the right to counsel)
Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (appellate presumption of correctness: error must be affirmatively shown)
People v. Williams, 58 Cal.4th 197 (an erroneous denial of a valid Faretta request is reversible per se; discusses standards for Faretta requests)