People v. Fox
224 Cal. App. 4th 424
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant James Joseph Fox was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)) (count 1) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594) (count 2); jury convicted on both counts.
- During trial, Fox requested to represent himself (Faretta waiver) so he could cross-examine the victim and call witnesses; the trial court conducted a Lopez/Faretta colloquy and accepted his waiver.
- Earlier pretrial colloquies included misstatements by Fox and the court about whether count 1 was a “naked 245” (assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury) and whether it would qualify as a Three Strikes strike; in fact the information and complaint charged assault with a deadly weapon, which is a strike offense.
- Fox argued on appeal that his self-representation waiver was invalid because the trial court incorrectly suggested count 1 was not a strike.
- The trial court sentenced Fox to the upper term (4 years) on count 1 and time served on count 2; Fox also argued the court abused its discretion by denying probation and imposing the upper term.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: waiver of counsel was valid despite the misstatements, and denial of probation and upper-term sentence were within the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Fox) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Faretta waiver given court misstatements about strike status | Waiver was valid because the record as a whole shows Fox understood dangers of self-representation and had been provided correct charging documents | Waiver invalid because court misadvised that count 1 was not a strike and Fox relied on that in choosing self-representation | Waiver valid: misstatements were collateral/misplaced, Fox had correct charging documents, and no evidence he relied on the error when waiving counsel (affirmed) |
| Duty to advise about collateral consequences (Three Strikes) at Faretta hearing | No requirement to cure a collateral misstatement when defendant already knew correct charges and penalties | Court’s incorrect statement about strike status undermined knowing waiver | Court: collateral misstatements here did not invalidate waiver where defendant had been informed of charges and maximum punishment and did not rely on the error |
| Denial of probation | Probation denial justified by statutory presumptive ineligibility, lengthy criminal history, relapsed substance abuse, danger to community | Fox argued his addiction and circumstances made him eligible for probation despite presumptions | Denial of probation not an abuse of discretion; multiple statutory and discretionary factors supported refusal |
| Upper-term sentence selection | Upper term supported by danger to community, repeated failures on probation, criminal history, substance abuse | Fox argued upper term was excessive and tied to same errors as probation denial | Imposition of upper term not an abuse of discretion; stated reasons support sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgener v. California, 46 Cal.4th 231 (California Supreme Court) (test for knowing and intelligent Faretta waiver)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court) (constitutional right to self-representation)
- Erskine v. United States, 355 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.) (waiver invalid where court misadvised defendant about penalties and record did not show accurate understanding)
- Conners v. People, 168 Cal.App.4th 443 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Faretta waiver valid where required information provided prior to trial)
- Goodwillie v. People, 147 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court and prosecutor have duty not to misstate law to pro per defendant)
- D'Arcy v. People, 48 Cal.4th 257 (California Supreme Court) (defendant must show reliance on court misadvice to prevail on Faretta-related claim)
- Bernal v. People, 22 Cal.App.4th 1455 (Cal. Ct. App.) (defendant need not be advised of collateral future use of conviction before plea)