People v. Wrentmore
127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wrentmore was convicted in 2004 of criminal threat and dissuading a witness after an incident with a bus driver.
- He was found to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) in 2007 and committed to a state hospital until May 2010.
- In December 2009 the Orange County DA petitioned to extend his commitment, supported by medical director affidavit and a September 2009 psych evaluation showing paranoid schizophrenia and danger to others.
- Before trial, Wrentmore moved to represent himself; the court conducted a Faretta inquiry, warned of risks, and granted self-representation after determining waiver was knowingly made.
- The extension trial proceeded with jury, witnesses incl. treating psychiatrist, and the jury found he remained an MDO, extending the commitment to May 2011.
- Appeal argues the self-representation waiver was improper and that the proceeding violated his rights, but the court applied Watson harmless-error review and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiving counsel for the extension trial was proper | Wrentmore argues the waiver was not knowing or voluntary given his mental state | Wrentmore contends the waiver was knowingly made and the court properly allowed self-representation | Waiver upheld; self-representation permitted under statutory framework and proper inquiry |
| Standard for reviewing errors in MDO self-representation | Errors should be reviewed for nonharmless per se reversal when constitutional rights implicated | Rights are statutory; any error is Watson harmless error if no prejudice shown | Harmless-error standard applies; no probability of a more favorable result shown |
| Whether the court’s decision to allow self-representation complied with due process | The proceeding appeared unfair and chaotic due to defendant's mental state | Court complied with due process by allowing hearing on waiver and ensuring capacity | Due-process requirements satisfied; no miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1975) (right to self-representation in criminal trials; waiver must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008) (limits on self-representation for mentally ill defendants; appearance of fairness required)
- Massey v. Moore, 348 U.S. 105 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1954) (cannot have a trial that leaves a defendant unable to defend himself)
- Williams v. State, 110 Cal.App.4th 1577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (MDO defendants have statutory right to counsel and to self-representation; review is for harmless error)
- People v. Cosgrove, 100 Cal.App.4th 1266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (reaffirmed Watson harmless error approach for MDO proceedings)
- People v. Burgener, 46 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2009) (discussed limits and prejudice in Faretta-like waivers in special contexts)
- Hannibal v. People, 143 Cal.App.4th 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (recognizes statutory right to counsel in MDO proceedings)