implicit consideration factors in California

2025(See People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1110 [a motion for self- 18 representation is untimely if it is “not asserted within a reasonable time prior to trial”].) “[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors. [Citations.]” (People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 (Scott).) The court noted the untimeliness of the request “in the middle of the trial.” This indicates its consideration of the “stage of the proceedings” as well as “the disrup

2024Moreover, defendant’s failure to make the Faretta motion the day before in connection with his Marsden motion supported the implied finding that defendant’s request was merely a delay tactic.” (Id. at pp. 904–905; see also People v. Bradford (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1345, 1354 [“a trial court’s exercise of discretion in denying an untimely Faretta motion is properly affirmed if substantial evidence in the record supports the inference that the court had those factors in mind when it ruled”]; People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 [“[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly consid

2014(Scott, supra, 91 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1206 [“while the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors”]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [“[w]hile the court did not specifically make [a Windham] inquiry, . . . there were sufficient reasons on the record for the court to exercise its discretion to deny the request”].) This is true even if the court not only failed to state the reasons for its denial of the motion, but also failed to make the sua sponte

2014(See, e.g., People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 [“while the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors”]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [“[w]hile the court did not specifically make [a Windham] inquiry, . . . there were sufficient reasons on the record for the court to exercise its discretion to deny the request”].) Although it did so in the context of a Marsden hearing, the trial court elicited the relevant procedural history regard

2022Among other factors to be considered by the court in assessing such requests . . . are 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 proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion.” (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128 .) Mere disagreement over trial tactics is “an insufficient reason to grant an untimely Faretta request.” (People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 309, fn. 4 ,) “[W]hile [a] trial co

2001(See People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 828 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 919 P.2d 1280 ]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ].) The record reflects that: Scott had a proclivity for trying to substitute counsel (he had made at least two Marsden motions); as a result of the Marsden motions, the trial court was aware of the quality of defense counsel’s representation; Scott’s main problem with counsel was a disagreement over trial tactics, which is “an insufficient reason to grant an untimely Faretta request” 4 (People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 309, fn

2025(See People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1110 [a motion for self- 18 representation is untimely if it is “not asserted within a reasonable time prior to trial”].) “[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors. [Citations.]” (People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 (Scott).) The court noted the untimeliness of the request “in the middle of the trial.” This indicates its consideration of the “stage of the proceedings” as well as “the disrup

2022Among other factors to be considered by the court in assessing such requests . . . are 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 proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion.” (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128 .) Mere disagreement over trial tactics is “an insufficient reason to grant an untimely Faretta request.” (People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 309, fn. 4 ,) “[W]hile [a] trial co

2024Moreover, defendant’s failure to make the Faretta motion the day before in connection with his Marsden motion supported the implied finding that defendant’s request was merely a delay tactic.” (Id. at pp. 904–905; see also People v. Bradford (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1345, 1354 [“a trial court’s exercise of discretion in denying an untimely Faretta motion is properly affirmed if substantial evidence in the record supports the inference that the court had those factors in mind when it ruled”]; People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 [“[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly consid

2014(People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 129, fn. 6 ; People v. Bradford (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1345, 1354 .) All that is required is that the record reflect “sufficient reasons . . . to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors.” (People v. Scott, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1206 .) Under Windham, the trial court considers a number of factors when exercising its discretion to grant a request for self-representation that is not made within a reasonable time prior to trial, including: (1) the quality of counsel’s representation of defendant; (2) the defendant’s prior proclivity to

2022(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1106 .) The trial court had already considered the quality of counsel’s representation.

2001(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1109-1110 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].)'In the second place, while the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors.

2025(See People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1110 [a motion for self- 18 representation is untimely if it is “not asserted within a reasonable time prior to trial”].) “[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors. [Citations.]” (People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 (Scott).) The court noted the untimeliness of the request “in the middle of the trial.” This indicates its consideration of the “stage of the proceedings” as well as “the disrup

2014(People v. Dent (2003) 30 Cal.4th 213, 218 [where a trial court denies a Faretta motion without making a proper Windham inquiry, “if the record as a whole establishes defendant’s request was nonetheless properly denied on other grounds, we would uphold the trial court’s ruling”].) Here, although the trial court did not explicitly consider the Windham factors when it initially ruled that Patterson’s Faretta motion was untimely, the court did evaluate each of the Windham factors later in the hearing and made an adequate record of its reasons for denying the motion.

2010(See People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 318 ] [“[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors.”]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ] [“While the court did not specifically make [a *1355 Windham] inquiry, we conclude there were sufficient reasons on the record for the court to exercise its discretion to deny the request.”].) Citing People v. Butler (2009) 47 Cal.4th 814, 826 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.

2010(See People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 318 ] [“[W]hile the trial court may not have explicitly considered each of the Windham factors, there were sufficient reasons on the record to constitute an implicit consideration of these factors.”]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ] [“While the court did not specifically make [a *1355 Windham] inquiry, we conclude there were sufficient reasons on the record for the court to exercise its discretion to deny the request.”].) Citing People v. Butler (2009) 47 Cal.4th 814, 826 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.

2001(See People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 828 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 919 P.2d 1280 ]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ].) The record reflects that: Scott had a proclivity for trying to substitute counsel (he had made at least two Marsden motions); as a result of the Marsden motions, the trial court was aware of the quality of defense counsel’s representation; Scott’s main problem with counsel was a disagreement over trial tactics, which is “an insufficient reason to grant an untimely Faretta request” 4 (People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 309, fn

2001(See People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 828 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 919 P.2d 1280 ]; People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 904 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ].) The record reflects that: Scott had a proclivity for trying to substitute counsel (he had made at least two Marsden motions); as a result of the Marsden motions, the trial court was aware of the quality of defense counsel’s representation; Scott’s main problem with counsel was a disagreement over trial tactics, which is “an insufficient reason to grant an untimely Faretta request” 4 (People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 309, fn