self-represented defendant privilege in California

2022(See People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 [“Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly”]; see also People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210, 1226 [“[A] trial court is not required to advise a self-represented defendant of the privilege against compelled self- incrimination.

2017"The general rule is that a trial court ordinarily is not required to give any advisement to a self-represented defendant who chooses to represent himself or herself after knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily forgoing the assistance of counsel." ( People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 1214, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 499 , 64 P.3d 788 .) Barnum considered whether the trial court was required to advise a self-represented defendant of the privilege against self-incrimination before the defendant was called as a witness by the prosecution or testified on his own behalf. ( Id . at pp. 1217-1225, 131

2022(See People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 [“Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly”]; see also People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210, 1226 [“[A] trial court is not required to advise a self-represented defendant of the privilege against compelled self- incrimination.

2005A self-represented defendant may not claim ineffective assistance on account of counsel’s omission to perform an act within the scope of duties the defendant voluntarily undertook to perform ... at trial.” (People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1226-1227, italics in original.) However, “[a]s to those aspects of the representation over which counsel retains control, counsel remains responsible for providing constitutionally effective representation, and the defendant may assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 157 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 ,

2005A self-represented defendant may not claim ineffective assistance on account of counsel’s omission to perform an act within the scope of duties the defendant voluntarily undertook to perform ... at trial.” (People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1226-1227, italics in original.) However, “[a]s to those aspects of the representation over which counsel retains control, counsel remains responsible for providing constitutionally effective representation, and the defendant may assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 157 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 ,

2004We would hesitate to discard the rule if the Legislature had "enacted statutes in reliance" on it ( People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 270 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135 , 906 P.2d 1290 ) or had made it a "basic part of a ... comprehensive statutory scheme" ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 924 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 4 P.3d 265 ).

2004We would hesitate to discard the rule if the Legislature had "enacted statutes in reliance" on it ( People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 270 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135 , 906 P.2d 1290 ) or had made it a "basic part of a ... comprehensive statutory scheme" ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 924 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 4 P.3d 265 ).

2004We would hesitate to discard the rule if the Legislature had "enacted statutes in reliance" on it ( People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 270 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135 , 906 P.2d 1290 ) or had made it a "basic part of a ... comprehensive statutory scheme" ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 924 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 4 P.3d 265 ).

2004We would hesitate to discard the rule if the Legislature had "enacted statutes in reliance" on it ( People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 270 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135 , 906 P.2d 1290 ) or had made it a "basic part of a ... comprehensive statutory scheme" ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 924 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 4 P.3d 265 ).

2003Nevertheless, the defendant’s choice of self-representation “must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’ ” (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [ 95 S.Ct. at p. 2541 ].) Although Faretta does not require a trial court to advise a self-represented defendant of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, neither does it prohibit such an advisement.

2003Nevertheless, the defendant’s choice of self-representation “must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’ ” (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [ 95 S.Ct. at p. 2541 ].) Although Faretta does not require a trial court to advise a self-represented defendant of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, neither does it prohibit such an advisement.

2002A self-represented defendant may not claim ineffective assistance on account of counsel’s omission to perform an act within the scope of duties the defendant voluntarily undertook to perform *526 personally at trial.” Our recent decision in People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 145 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ] confirmed that when advisory counsel is appointed “the defendant is entitled to expect professionally competent assistance within the narrow scope of advisory counsel’s proper role.” We find no reason to reconsider that analysis.

2002A self-represented defendant may not claim ineffective assistance on account of counsel’s omission to perform an act within the scope of duties the defendant voluntarily undertook to perform *526 personally at trial.” Our recent decision in People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 145 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ] confirmed that when advisory counsel is appointed “the defendant is entitled to expect professionally competent assistance within the narrow scope of advisory counsel’s proper role.” We find no reason to reconsider that analysis.