Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Windhamgreen2 sentences2025When the lateness of the request and even the necessity of a continuance can be reasonably justified the request should be granted.” (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, fn. 5 .) “When, on the other hand, a defendant merely seeks to delay the orderly processes of justice, a trial court is not required to grant a request for self-representation without any ability to test the request by a reasonable standard.” (Ibid.) Here, defendant made his Faretta request at his sentencing hearing. 2013When, on the other hand, a defendant merely seeks to delay the orderly processes of justice, a trial court is not required to grant a request for self-representation without any ability to test the request by a reasonable standard." (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, fn. 5 ; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 852-853 .) 11 An untimely Faretta motion is addressed to the trial court's discretion. | 4 | 5 |
People v. Burtongreen2 sentences2013When, on the other hand, a defendant merely seeks to delay the orderly processes of justice, a trial court is not required to grant a request for self-representation without any ability to test the request by a reasonable standard." (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, fn. 5 ; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 852-853 .) 11 An untimely Faretta motion is addressed to the trial court's discretion. 2013When, on the other hand, a defendant merely seeks to delay the orderly processes of justice, a trial court is not required to grant a request for self-representation without any ability to test the request by a reasonable standard.” (Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, fn. 5 ; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 852-853 (Burton ).) An untimely Faretta motion is addressed to the trial court’s discretion. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Pottergreen2 sentences1988Moreover, when holding in effect that Hall had waived or forfeited his absolute right to represent himself, the Hall court, at page 131, acknowledged being guided in part by "dictum" in People v. Potter (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 45, 50 [ 143 Cal. Rptr. 379 ]. 1988Moreover, when holding in effect that Hall had waived or forfeited his absolute right to represent himself, the Hall court, at page 131, acknowledged being guided in part by "dictum" in People v. Potter (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 45, 50 [ 143 Cal. Rptr. 379 ]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tynergreen2 sentences1983(People v. Freeman (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 302, 308-310 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Tyner (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 352, 355-356 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 52 ].) *789 In this case, several circumstances complicate the timeliness issue. 1983(People v. Freeman (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 302, 308-310 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Tyner (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 352, 355-356 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 52 ].) *789 In this case, several circumstances complicate the timeliness issue. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Freemangreen2 sentences1983(People v. Freeman (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 302, 308-310 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Tyner (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 352, 355-356 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 52 ].) *789 In this case, several circumstances complicate the timeliness issue. 1983(People v. Freeman (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 302, 308-310 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Tyner (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 352, 355-356 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 52 ].) *789 In this case, several circumstances complicate the timeliness issue. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 959 .) In exercising its discretion, the court should consider certain criteria, including "the quality of counsel's representation . . . 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 ; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 827 .) The erroneous denial of a timely Faretta request is reversible per se. 2013In exercising its discretion, the court should consider certain criteria, including “the quality of counsel’s representation . . . 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 ; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 959 ; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 827 .) The erroneous denial of a timely Faretta request is reversible per se. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 959 .) In exercising its discretion, the court should consider certain criteria, including "the quality of counsel's representation . . . 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 ; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 827 .) The erroneous denial of a timely Faretta request is reversible per se. 2013In exercising its discretion, the court should consider certain criteria, including “the quality of counsel’s representation . . . 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 ; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 959 ; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 827 .) The erroneous denial of a timely Faretta request is reversible per se. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Hall
green
2 sentences1988When, on the other hand, the defendant merely seeks to delay the orderly processes of justice, a trial court is not required to grant a request for self-representation without any ability to test the request by a reasonable standard." [5] Currently, of course, there prevails a contrary analysis of Windham and footnote 5 holding as in People v. Hall (1978) 87 Cal. App.3d 125 , at page 131 [ 150 Cal. Rptr. 628 ], that a Faretta motion made the day before trial or in close proximity forthwith addresses the discretion of the trial judge because the defendant's request was not made within a reasona 1988When, on the other hand, the defendant merely seeks to delay the orderly processes of justice, a trial court is not required to grant a request for self-representation without any ability to test the request by a reasonable standard." [5] Currently, of course, there prevails a contrary analysis of Windham and footnote 5 holding as in People v. Hall (1978) 87 Cal. App.3d 125 , at page 131 [ 150 Cal. Rptr. 628 ], that a Faretta motion made the day before trial or in close proximity forthwith addresses the discretion of the trial judge because the defendant's request was not made within a reasona | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1977Although we are of the view that such a procedure is the preferred practice, our recent decision in People v. Edwards (1976) 18 Cal.3d 796 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 411 , 557 P.2d 995 ], leads us to conclude that such a strict and unbending rule is unnecessary in the present context. 1977Although we are of the view that such a procedure is the preferred practice, our recent decision in People v. Edwards (1976) 18 Cal.3d 796 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 411 , 557 P.2d 995 ], leads us to conclude that such a strict and unbending rule is unnecessary in the present context. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.