People v. Long CA4/1
D069186
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2016Background
- Defendant Chad Duane Long was convicted by a jury of assault likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(4)), corporal injury to a former cohabitant (§ 273.5(a)), and battery (§ 242); sentence included determinate 14 years plus 25-to-life.
- Jury found true ganging/intent and personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancements; other charges (attempted murder, witness-dissuasion) were mistried and dismissed; criminal threat charge acquitted.
- Procedural history: Long previously sought self-representation, was granted pro per for ~3 months, then asked for reappointment and had counsel reappointed; months later, two weeks before trial, Long made a Marsden motion complaining about appointed counsel.
- During the sealed Marsden hearing, after denial, Long said, "I would like to go pro to see if that's possible," but did not press the matter, the court did not treat it as a Faretta motion, and Long never renewed the request thereafter.
- On appeal Long argued the trial court erred by not recognizing and holding a hearing on his Faretta self-representation request; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no clear, unequivocal request and, alternatively, abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Long invoked his Faretta right to self-representation | People: Long did not make a clear, unequivocal Faretta request during the Marsden hearing | Long: His statement "I would like to go pro to see if that's possible" invoked Faretta | Court: Statement was equivocal and not an unequivocal invocation of Faretta; did not invoke right |
| Whether court had duty to hold a Faretta hearing on equivocal remark | People: No duty when request is not unequivocal | Long: Court should have inquired or held a hearing per Dent | Court: No hearing required for equivocal request; Dent does not compel inquiry here |
| Whether Long abandoned or waived any Faretta request by inaction | People: Long remained silent and accepted counsel; thus he abandoned any request | Long: Short time before trial limited opportunity to seek ruling | Court: Long had opportunity to renew and failed to do so; any request was abandoned |
| Whether error requires reversal | People: No reversible error because no clear Faretta demand and/or abandonment | Long: Failure to recognize/right violated his constitutional rights requiring reversal | Court: No reversible error; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognition of constitutional right to self-representation)
- People v. Barnett, 17 Cal.4th 1044 (standard for unequivocal Faretta invocation)
- People v. Boyce, 59 Cal.4th 672 (indulge every reasonable inference against waiver of counsel)
- People v. Dent, 30 Cal.4th 213 (de novo review of record whether Faretta was invoked)
- People v. Valdez, 32 Cal.4th 73 (no duty to hold Faretta hearing for equivocal remark)
- People v. Dunkle, 36 Cal.4th 861 (Faretta right may be waived or abandoned)
- People v. Skaggs, 44 Cal.App.4th 1 (equivocal Faretta remark during Marsden hearing insufficient)
- People v. Kenner, 223 Cal.App.3d 56 (failure to pursue ruling on Faretta motion can constitute abandonment)