People v. Ortiz CA4/1
D076579
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Undercover officer purchased .22 grams of meth from Ortiz during a July 11, 2018 buy‑bust; the prerecorded $20 bill used in the purchase was later recovered from Ortiz.
- Ortiz, a legally blind Spanish‑speaker, repeatedly told the court he wanted to represent himself; the court warned him of risks, documented a Faretta waiver, and provided numerous accommodations (readers, interpreters, Braille tools, opportunity to review discovery and video).
- Ortiz was tried by jury (Aug. 2019), convicted of selling meth (Health & Saf. Code §11379(a)), and found to have multiple prior convictions including three prison‑term enhancements under former Penal Code §667.5(b).
- The trial court sentenced Ortiz to nine years (midterm 6 years + three one‑year prison‑term enhancements); the court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments without an explicit on‑the‑record inability‑to‑pay finding.
- On appeal Ortiz argued the court should have treated his request to self‑represent as a motion to substitute counsel and sua sponte held a Marsden hearing; he also challenged the §667.5 enhancements under post‑2019 amendments and sought an inability‑to‑pay inquiry for fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had a duty to sua sponte conduct a Marsden hearing when Ortiz repeatedly sought to represent himself | No duty — a Faretta request is distinct from a Marsden substitution request; court properly honored waiver and need not inquire further | Court should have construed pro per requests/dissatisfaction as a Marsden motion and held an inquiry | No error: Ortiz made clear he wanted to self‑represent, not substitute counsel; no ‘some clear indication’ he sought new appointed counsel; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Whether defendant’s disabilities (legal blindness, limited English) required revocation of Faretta status under Edwards (competency to self‑represent) | Court sufficiently assessed and provided accommodations; Faretta valid | Disabilities placed Ortiz in ‘‘gray area’’ and court should have revoked self‑rep status | Court properly assessed risks, provided accommodations, and allowed self‑rep; observed defendant understood risks and repeatedly elected to proceed pro per |
| Whether the three one‑year prison‑term enhancements under former §667.5(b) must be stricken after SB 136 (effective Jan 1, 2020) | Improvements to §667.5 apply retroactively; enhancements for non‑sexually violent priors no longer authorized | (No effective counterargument) | Agree: three §667.5(b) priors stricken; remand for resentencing because sentencing choice (middle term) may change outcome |
| Whether the court erred by imposing fines/fees without first determining Ortiz’s ability to pay (Dueñas) | Forfeiture argued because Ortiz did not object at sentencing; but remand appropriate to allow ability‑to‑pay inquiry at resentencing | Court failed to make an ability‑to‑pay finding before imposing fines/fees per Dueñas | Did not decide the Dueñas claim on the merits; because of resentencing remanded so Ortiz may renew inability‑to‑pay objections at resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self‑representation and waiver requirements)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (trial courts may deny self‑representation to defendants who, though competent to stand trial, are not competent to conduct trial proceedings)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (procedure and hearing required when defendant seeks substitute counsel)
- People v. Burton, 48 Cal.3d 843 (1989) (Faretta request does not automatically trigger Marsden inquiry)
- People v. Sanchez, 53 Cal.4th 80 (2011) (trial court need only hold Marsden hearing where defendant gives ‘some clear indication’ he wants substituted counsel)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (remand for resentencing appropriate where recent statutory change affects enhancements and discretionary sentencing choices)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (courts should consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing certain fines/fees)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional errors)