47 Cal.App.5th 984
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In April 2017 Alejandro C. Torres attacked his ex‑girlfriend (battery, assault with a deadly weapon, possession of weapons, kidnapping); police found brass knuckles and a small bat; victim suffered head, face and neck injuries.
- After arrest Torres called his sister from jail and asked her to contact the victim and have the victim state she was coerced by police into making statements.
- Torres had earlier waived counsel and was proceeding pro per under Faretta; the superior court had issued a criminal protective order prohibiting contact with the victim and had warned Torres that pro per status could be revoked for obstructive conduct.
- The trial court found Torres violated the protective order, attempted to dissuade a witness, and tried to use a third person to contact the victim; it revoked his self‑representation and reappointed counsel 11 months before trial.
- A jury convicted Torres on multiple counts and enhancements; the trial court imposed fines, fees, and restitution (some modified nunc pro tunc).
- On appeal the court affirmed the revocation of Faretta status and held Torres forfeited any Dueñas challenge to fines and fees by not objecting below.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Torres’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court permissibly revoked Torres’s Faretta right for attempted witness intimidation and related violations | Torres used his pro per status to attempt to intimidate/dissuade the victim, violated the protective order and court rules, and threatened trial integrity; revocation was within court’s discretion | Revocation was an abuse of discretion: the call did not show dissuasion from testifying, Carson requires a nexus to exploiting pro per status, and the court failed to consider or record lesser sanctions | Affirmed. Court found attempted witness intimidation and other violations, implied impairment of trial integrity, and no abuse of discretion on silent record about lesser sanctions |
| Whether fines, assessments, and restitution were imposed without a present‑ability‑to‑pay finding (Dueñas) | Torres forfeited any Dueñas claim by failing to object or request an ability‑to‑pay hearing | Torres argued fines and assessments were imposed without ability‑to‑pay findings | Affirmed. Dueñas challenge forfeited for failure to raise below |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Sixth Amendment right to self‑representation)
- People v. Carson, 35 Cal.4th 1 (trial court may revoke Faretta status for witness intimidation and serious obstructive misconduct)
- People v. Becerra, 63 Cal.4th 511 (limitations on revocation where record inadequate)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (pro per defendant must follow court rules and decorum)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability‑to‑pay findings for fines/assessments)
- King v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.4th 929 (apply least‑burdensome measure before infringing fundamental rights)