timeliness requirement in California

2025For a Faretta request to be timely, it must be made within “a reasonable time prior to commencement of the sentencing hearing.” (Miller, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1024 .) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ ” (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 454 .) In People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 (Windham), our Supreme Court cautioned the “ ‘reasonable time’ requirement should not be and, indeed, must not be used as a means of limiting a defendant’s consti

2021Our high court has “long held that a Faretta motion is timely if it is made ‘within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial.’ ” (Johnson, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 499 .) “[T]he ‘reasonable time’ requirement ‘must not be used as a means of limiting a defendant’s constitutional right of self-representation,’ but rather to prevent the defendant from ‘misus[ing] the Faretta mandate as a means to unjustifiably delay a scheduled trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ ” (Ibid.) A timeliness requirement “reflects that ‘the government’s interest in ensuring the integrit

2022(People v. Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 722 (Lynch), disapproved on another ground in People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 637, 643 .) A trial court must not use the timeliness requirement to limit a defendant’s constitutional right to self- representation.

2021(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 193 [the constitutional right to self-representation “must be asserted within a reasonable time before trial”].) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 454 .) “[T]imeliness for purposes of Faretta is based not on a fixed and arbitrary point in time, but upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances that exist in the case at the time the self- representation

2009Analysis In this case, the trial court concluded that the Lab Report did not meet the timeliness requirement of subdivision (b) of section 1280 because it did not establish that it was prepared at or near the time of the analysis of the blood sample. “ ‘How soon a writing must be made after the act or event is a matter of degree and calls for the exercise of reasonable judgment on the part of the trial judge.’ ” (Martinez, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 128, fn. 7 .) “[T]he timeliness requirement ‘is not to be judged ... by arbitrary or artificial time limits, measured by hours or days or even weeks.

2009(Martinez, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 126 [in applying the timeliness requirement from § 1280 “to computer printouts from a database, we consider the length of time between the act, condition, or event and the date of its recording, not the date of its eventual retrieval by computer printout”].) The appellate court examined the admissibility of forensic lab reports in DMV proceedings under section 1280 in Glatman, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 700 and Molenda, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th 974 .

2021(People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 433, fn. 15 .) Faretta warned that a trial court “may terminate self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct.” ( Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46.) According to the California Supreme Court, “the same rule applies to the denial of a motion for self-representation in the first instance when a defendant’s conduct prior to the Faretta motion gives the trial court a reasonable basis for believing that his self-representation will create disruption.” (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th

2014(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 193 [the constitutional right to self-representation “must be asserted within a reasonable time before trial”]; People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 127-128 (Windham) [“to invoke the constitutionally mandated unconditional right of self-representation a defendant in a criminal trial should make an unequivocal assertion of that right within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial”].) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administrat

2021And although the PCPA does not contain an explicit provision regarding claims that hinge on inadequate understanding of adverse immigration consequences, Oregon petitioners can raise an Oregon 14 We emphasize that a timeliness inquiry is always discretionary; as long as a petitioner is no longer in criminal custody, the trial court is never obligated to deny an immigration-related section 1473.7 petition for lack of timeliness. ( Perez, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1015‒1016.) 16 Annotated Statutes, section 138.530(1)(a) claim using a Padilla theory. 15 (See, e.g., Gutale v. State (Or. 2019) 4

2021And although the PCPA does not contain an explicit provision regarding claims that hinge on inadequate understanding of adverse immigration consequences, Oregon petitioners can raise an Oregon 14 We emphasize that a timeliness inquiry is always discretionary; as long as a petitioner is no longer in criminal custody, the trial court is never obligated to deny an immigration-related section 1473.7 petition for lack of timeliness. ( Perez, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1015‒1016.) 16 Annotated Statutes, section 138.530(1)(a) claim using a Padilla theory.15 (See, e.g., Gutale v. State (Or. 2019) 43

2021(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 193 [the constitutional right to self-representation “must be asserted within a reasonable time before trial”].) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 454 .) “[T]imeliness for purposes of Faretta is based not on a fixed and arbitrary point in time, but upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances that exist in the case at the time the self- representation

2015(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 193 (Williams) [the constitutional right to self-representation “must be asserted within a reasonable time before trial”]; Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at pp. 127-128 [“to invoke the constitutionally mandated unconditional right of self-representation a defendant in a criminal trial should make an unequivocal assertion of that right within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial”].) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of

2024(Id., subd. (c)(1)–(3).) The Lashon court opined it would not make sense “for the Legislature to prescribe a comprehensive procedure for making and adjudicating a section 745 motion at the trial level (including a specific waiver provision for untimely motions), only to allow defendants who could have but did not use that procedure (thereby preserving their claim for review) to bypass that procedure and pursue a section 745 claim for the first time on direct appeal.” (Lashon, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 813; accord People v. Singh (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 76 , 115 (Singh) [“To permit a defendant

2024(Id., subd. (c)(1)–(3).) The Lashon court opined it would not make sense “for the Legislature to prescribe a comprehensive procedure for making and adjudicating a section 745 motion at the trial level (including a specific waiver provision for untimely motions), only to allow defendants who could have but did not use that procedure (thereby preserving their claim for review) to bypass that procedure and pursue a section 745 claim for the first time on direct appeal.” (Lashon, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 813; accord People v. Singh (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 76 , 115 (Singh) [“To permit a defendant

2023The timeliness of a claim is thus 2 See, e.g., Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d) (delayed discovery rule applies to fraud-based claims); Goverment Code section 1092, subdivision (b) (incorporating delayed discovery principles for conflict-of-interest claims); April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 830 (delayed discovery rule applies to contract claims involving fraud); Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 9 (delayed discovery rule applies to professional negligence claims under some circumstances); Pincay v. Andrews (9th Cir. 2001) 238 F.3d 1106 , 1109 (RI

1989(April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 828 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ].) In the present case the final wrongful act alleged by plaintiff occurred on September 25, 1981.

2015(Kristin H., at p. 1664.) “[R]eversal [of an order in a dependency proceeding] because of ineffective assistance of counsel does not preclude further dependency proceedings in juvenile court . . . .” (In re Emilye A., supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 1707, fn. 9.) But it does “required that the proceedings be reconducted.” (Ibid.; accord, In re Paul W., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 71 (cone. opn. of Bamattre-Manoukian, J.).) A legal malpractice claim is different.

2015(Ibid.) "[R]eversal of an order in a dependency proceeding [because of incompetency of counsel] . . . does not preclude further dependency proceedings in juvenile court . . . ." (In re Emilye A., supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 1707, fn. 9 .) But it does "require[ ] that the proceedings be reconducted . . . ." (Ibid.; accord, In re Paul W., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 71 (conc. opn. of Bamattre-Manoukian, J.).) A legal malpractice claim is different.

2015(Carrie M., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 533-534; see Kristin H., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1667 .) This timeline protects the significant need for finality in the dependency system. *1094 The timeliness rule also reflects that the habeas corpus procedure in juvenile dependency actions exists not only to safeguard the parent’s fundamental rights but also to ensure the correctness of the result — that the judgment/order promotes the child’s welfare. “ ‘If counsel’s ineffective representation of the parent has resulted in an inappropriate termination of the parent-child relationship, the child

2015(Carrie M., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 533-534; see Kristin H., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1667 .) This timeline protects the significant need for finality in the dependency system. *1094 The timeliness rule also reflects that the habeas corpus procedure in juvenile dependency actions exists not only to safeguard the parent’s fundamental rights but also to ensure the correctness of the result — that the judgment/order promotes the child’s welfare. “ ‘If counsel’s ineffective representation of the parent has resulted in an inappropriate termination of the parent-child relationship, the child

2022(People v. Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 722 (Lynch), disapproved on another ground in People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 637, 643 .) A trial court must not use the timeliness requirement to limit a defendant’s constitutional right to self- representation.

2020(People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 729 ; People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 , 127–128.) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 454 .) When considering whether a motion for self-representation is timely, “a trial court 6. properly considers not only the time between the motion and the scheduled trial date, but also such factors as whether trial counsel is ready to proceed to trial, the number of witn

2011We decline to adopt the Ninth Circuit standard and instead apply the broader conception of laches used in California, which is closely related to the timeliness requirement, and thus “reflects recognition that a substantial delay will prejudice the respondent’s ability to answer the petition, respects the importance of finality of judgments to the state, and recognizes the difficulty of retrial in the event that a judgment is set aside on habeas corpus many years after the conviction.” (Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 787 .) Here, the People have been prejudiced both with regard to retrying Defe

1999If, on the other hand, we find petitioner fails to show good cause for the delay, we need only read the petition to assure ourselves petitioner’s factual allegations do not make a prima facie showing his case falls within one of the four exceptions to the timeliness requirement set forth in Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th 750 .

2025For a Faretta request to be timely, it must be made within “a reasonable time prior to commencement of the sentencing hearing.” (Miller, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1024 .) “The timeliness requirement ‘serves to prevent a defendant from misusing the motion to delay unjustifiably the trial or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ ” (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 454 .) In People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 (Windham), our Supreme Court cautioned the “ ‘reasonable time’ requirement should not be and, indeed, must not be used as a means of limiting a defendant’s consti

2022(Lynch, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 722 .) In determining timeliness, the sentencing hearing is considered “a proceeding separate and distinct from the trial.” (People v. Miller (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1024 (Miller).) The Wright court acknowledged our Supreme Court has declined to articulate what standard a reviewing court applies when determining timeliness but concluded in that case it was untimely under both de novo and abuse of discretion standards.

2021(Buenrostro, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 426 ; People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73 , 103 14 (Valdez).) “ ‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its rulings “fall ‘outside the bounds of reason.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Smith (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1134, 1182 (Smith); People v. Powell (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1278 (Powell).) As our high court noted in Lynch, it has “held on numerous occasions that Faretta motions made on the eve of trial are untimely.” (Lynch, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 722 .)11 The Lynch court went on to explain that motions made “long before trial” have been considered timely, citing a ca

2018(People v. Smith (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1134, 1182 .) The timeliness requirement is meant to ensure that a defendant does not “misuse the Faretta mandate as a means to unjustifiably delay a scheduled [hearing] or to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.” (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128, fn. 5 (Windham).) To this end, relevant factors in evaluating an untimely request for self- representation include “the quality of counsel’s representation of the defendant, the defendant’s prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedi

2015(Carrie M., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 533-534; see Kristin H., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1667 .) This timeline protects the significant need for finality in the dependency system. *1094 The timeliness rule also reflects that the habeas corpus procedure in juvenile dependency actions exists not only to safeguard the parent’s fundamental rights but also to ensure the correctness of the result — that the judgment/order promotes the child’s welfare. “ ‘If counsel’s ineffective representation of the parent has resulted in an inappropriate termination of the parent-child relationship, the child

2015(Carrie M., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 533-534; see Kristin H., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1667 .) This timeline protects the significant need for finality in the dependency system. *1094 The timeliness rule also reflects that the habeas corpus procedure in juvenile dependency actions exists not only to safeguard the parent’s fundamental rights but also to ensure the correctness of the result — that the judgment/order promotes the child’s welfare. “ ‘If counsel’s ineffective representation of the parent has resulted in an inappropriate termination of the parent-child relationship, the child

2014(Hobart, supra, 26 Cal.2d at p. 443 .) Like the fraud claim, the UCL claim fails as untimely given the statute of limitations.

2014(Hobart, supra, 26 Cal.2d at p. 443.) Like the fraud claim, the UCL claim fails as untimely given the statute of limitations.