People v. Powell
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 214
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Powell was convicted of rape of his daughter and exposing her to obscene pornographic movies; appeal challenged Faretta self-representation, closed-circuit testimony, sentencing decisions, and sufficiency of evidence for 288.2(a).
- Marsden hearing denied replacement of counsel; Faretta motion denied as untimely on the trial date.
- Victim was child of Powell and L.H.; unsupervised Sunday visits allowed during which assaults occurred.
- The court sentenced Powell to 25 years to life on 288.7, consecutive to a 3-year term on 288.2.
- The court held a § 1347/ Craig framework hearing to determine if the victim could testify via two-way closed-circuit television.
- The record includes extensive pretrial proceedings and multiple expert opinions regarding the victim’s ability to testify emotionally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Faretta request | Powell timely invoked Faretta rights | Court should deny due to on-day trial timing | Faretta motion denied; no constitutional violation |
| Closed-circuit testimony admissibility | Craig justification supports TV testimony | Absent explicit questioning of the girl, abuse of discretion | Court did not abuse discretion; testimony allowed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 288.2(a) | Evidence showed patently offensive movies and lack of value | Descriptions were too vague to prove obscenity | Sufficient evidence; conviction sustained |
| Section 654 stay of sentence on 288.2(a) | One act with single objective; should stay | Multiple independent intents; separate punishments warranted | Separate intents; no stay required; multiple punishments affirmed |
| Failure to state reasons for upper term and consecutive sentences | Trial court violated sentencing statutes; remand | Forfeited by failure to object; remand inappropriate | Forfeited; no remand required; sentencing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (competence to stand trial vs represent oneself; separate standards)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (closed-circuit testimony may be allowed to protect child witnesses)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to represent oneself; must be timely and unequivocal)
- People v. Windham, 19 Cal.3d 121 (Cal. 1977) (Faretta motion timing discretion on eve of trial)
- People v. Lynch, 50 Cal.4th 693 (Cal. 2010) (limits on Faretta motions on day of trial; disfavor noted)
- People v. Lawrence, 46 Cal.4th 186 (Cal. 2009) (Faretta motion must be timely and unequivocal)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (Cal. 1970) (motion to substitute counsel rights)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (obscenity standards; taken as a whole vs Miller)