consequences waiver in California

1994In Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ], the high court stated that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." ( Id. at p. 24 [17 L.Ed.2d at pp. 710-711].) When, as here, the violation of the federal Constitution occurs at the penalty phase of a capital trial, a reviewing court must proceed with particular caution. ( People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 253 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 80 , 801 P.2d 323 ] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); see Satt

1994In Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ], the high court stated that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." ( Id. at p. 24 [17 L.Ed.2d at pp. 710-711].) When, as here, the violation of the federal Constitution occurs at the penalty phase of a capital trial, a reviewing court must proceed with particular caution. ( People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 253 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 80 , 801 P.2d 323 ] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); see Satt

2003"A `knowing and intelligent waiver' of a right implies that *827 the waiver was entered into with awareness of its consequences. [Citations.]" ( People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 .) "[B]efore a defendant agrees to waive custody credit to which he is entitled, he should understand the full consequences of the waiver." ( People v. Ambrose, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp.1922-1923, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 , italics added.) "An awareness of the [full] consequences of waiving any right should include an understanding of the impact of that waiver on the amount of time a defen

2003"A `knowing and intelligent waiver' of a right implies that *827 the waiver was entered into with awareness of its consequences. [Citations.]" ( People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 .) "[B]efore a defendant agrees to waive custody credit to which he is entitled, he should understand the full consequences of the waiver." ( People v. Ambrose, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp.1922-1923, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 , italics added.) "An awareness of the [full] consequences of waiving any right should include an understanding of the impact of that waiver on the amount of time a defen

2025If the failure to appoint counsel would not be an abuse of discretion, the consequences of the error are properly assessed by employing the Watson harmless error standard.” (People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 738 (Morelos) [cleaned up], citing People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 861 (Crandell) and People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731 , 742–746 (Bigelow); People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) We acknowledge that our court previously declined to extend Bigelow’s reasoning regarding advisory counsel to a non-capital case.

1988(Cf. People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 348-349 [ 161 Cal. Rptr. 762 , 605 P.2d 401 ] [abuse of discretion in failing to appoint particular attorneys held harmless error].) No federal constitutional right being implicated, the consequences of the error are properly assessed *865 by employing the Watson harmless error standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant proved to be an aggressive, thorough, and skillful advocate in superior court.

2018The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails .' (Italics added; fn. omitted.) ( Id . at pp. 819-820 [ 95 S.Ct. 2525 ].) *422 "The Attorney General in effect stands Faretta on its head: from the defendant's conceded right to 'make a defense' in 'an adversary criminal trial,' the Attorney General attempts to infer a defendant's right to make no such defense and to have no such trial, even when his life is at stake.

2007The right of self-representation is based on the recognition that “[t]he right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.” (Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 819-820 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 573 ].) A defendant’s choice of self-representation “must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 834.) These policies are not impaired by holding a defendant to account for what he says while representing himself.

2016(Collins, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 305, fn. 2 ; People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 492, 500 .) A defendant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial may be accepted only if it is knowing and intelligent—made with full awareness of the nature of the right being waived and the consequences of the waiver.

2003(People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 305 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 , 27 P.3d 726 ] [defendant may waive fundamental constitutional right to jury trial].) A defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial, as with other fundamental rights, may be accepted by the court only if knowing and intelligent—made with a full awareness of the nature of the right being waived and the consequences of the waiver.

2022However, since we have not found that the admission of the evidence 46 was error under state law, we need not decide “the consequences of that error, including . . . whether the error was so serious as to violate due process.” (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 437 .) E.

2022However, since we have not found that the admission of the evidence 46 was error under state law, we need not decide “the consequences of that error, including . . . whether the error was so serious as to violate due process.” (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 437 .) E.

2007Although these possible violations are related, they must be analyzed separately, for the nature of the rights involved and the consequences of a violation differ substantially." ( Id. at p. 1020, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 .) In Walker , both types of error were present.

2007Although these possible violations are related, they must be analyzed separately, for the nature of the rights involved and the consequences of a violation differ substantially." ( Id. at p. 1020, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 .) In Walker , both types of error were present.

2025If the failure to appoint counsel would not be an abuse of discretion, the consequences of the error are properly assessed by employing the Watson harmless error standard.” (People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 738 (Morelos) [cleaned up], citing People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 861 (Crandell) and People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731 , 742–746 (Bigelow); People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) We acknowledge that our court previously declined to extend Bigelow’s reasoning regarding advisory counsel to a non-capital case.

2022(People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 753 [review of jury waiver considers the totality of circumstances “unique to each case”].) Porter initiated the request for a court trial and the record reveals no hesitation by Porter in entering the waiver or 9 any confusion regarding the consequences of the waiver.

2004Indeed, much of the confusion engendered by the appellate decisions on this issue results from a blurring of the distinction between these principles." ( Ibid. ; accord, In re Moser, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 350-351, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 723 , 862 P.2d 723 ; People v. McClellan, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 375, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 739 , 862 P.2d 739 .) The Walker case involved the imposition of a restitution fine, which the court never disclosed to the defendant prior to his plea.

2004Indeed, much of the confusion engendered by the appellate decisions on this issue results from a blurring of the distinction between these principles.” (Ibid.; accord, In re Moser, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 350-351; People v. McClellan, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 375.) The Walker case involved the imposition of a restitution fine, which the court never disclosed to the defendant prior to his plea.

1998The totality approach permits—indeed, it mandates—inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.” (442 U.S. at pp. 724-725 [99 S.Ct. at pp. 2571-2572].) In following this approach, the court in Fare concluded there was “no indication that [the defendant] was of insufficient intelligence to understand the rights he was waiving, or what the consequences of that waiver would be.” ( 442 U.S. at p. 726 [99 S.Ct. at p. 2572].) In Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 412 [ 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 ] (Moran), a case involving the defendant’s execution of a written form acknowledg

1998As was true with regard to the defendant in Fare, supra, 442 U.S. 707, 726 [ 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2572 ], there was no evidence that defendant in the present case lacked sufficient intelligence to understand those rights or the consequences of his waiver.

1992(See People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1174-1180 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ] reinterpreting In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132-133 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ] and In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 864-865 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) It follows from these principles that, before a defendant agrees to waive custody credit to which he is entitled, he should understand the full consequences of the waiver.

1992(See People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1174-1180 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ] reinterpreting In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132-133 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ] and In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 864-865 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) It follows from these principles that, before a defendant agrees to waive custody credit to which he is entitled, he should understand the full consequences of the waiver.

1992(See People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1174-1180 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ] reinterpreting In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132-133 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ] and In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 864-865 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) It follows from these principles that, before a defendant agrees to waive custody credit to which he is entitled, he should understand the full consequences of the waiver.

1992(See People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1174-1180 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ] reinterpreting In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132-133 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ] and In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 864-865 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) It follows from these principles that, before a defendant agrees to waive custody credit to which he is entitled, he should understand the full consequences of the waiver.

2017For instance, this court has upheld an express jury waiver made "with counsel's consent and agreement" where other circumstances bolstered the conclusion that defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent. ( People v. Cunningham (2015) 61 Cal.4th 609 , 637, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 737 , 352 P.3d 318 .) In Cunningham , the represented defendant received "a full explanation from the court of the right and the consequences of the waiver." ( Ibid. ) The defendant expressly acknowledged, moreover, that "(1) he had an absolute right to a jury trial in both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial, (2) in

2017For instance, this court has upheld an express jury waiver made "with counsel's consent and agreement" where other circumstances bolstered the conclusion that defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent. ( People v. Cunningham (2015) 61 Cal.4th 609 , 637, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 737 , 352 P.3d 318 .) In Cunningham , the represented defendant received "a full explanation from the court of the right and the consequences of the waiver." ( Ibid. ) The defendant expressly acknowledged, moreover, that "(1) he had an absolute right to a jury trial in both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial, (2) in

2018(See, e.g., *833 People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257 , 286-287, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 [waiver of right to self-representation]; People v. Fox (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 424 , 437, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 [waiver of right to counsel].) Arevalo can claim no such reliance.

2018(See, e.g., *833 People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257 , 286-287, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 [waiver of right to self-representation]; People v. Fox (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 424 , 437, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 [waiver of right to counsel].) Arevalo can claim no such reliance.

2018(See, e.g., *833 People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257 , 286-287, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 [waiver of right to self-representation]; People v. Fox (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 424 , 437, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 [waiver of right to counsel].) Arevalo can claim no such reliance.

2018(See, e.g., *833 People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257 , 286-287, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 [waiver of right to self-representation]; People v. Fox (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 424 , 437, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 [waiver of right to counsel].) Arevalo can claim no such reliance.

2025(People v. Thompson (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 69 , 113 [“[S]ince we have not found that the admission of the evidence was error under state law, we need not decide ‘the consequences of that error, including . . . whether the error was so serious as to violate due process.’ ”]; People v. Garcia (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 261, 275 [“ ‘ “Only if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence can its admission violate due process.” ’ ”].) And we need not discuss the parties’ arguments regarding prejudice or alleged ineffective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to obje

2025(People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 468, fn. 9 [“We need not reach the question [of] whether [a] claim of error was forfeited or error was invited, because it is clear no error occurred.”].) 2.