Opinion
S277281
02-01-2023
GATES (WILLIAM C.) ON H.C.
D080949 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1.
Petition for review denied
Guerrero, C. J., was recused and did not participate.
Concurring Statement by Justice Groban
In October 2017, petitioner William Gates committed an assault against a stranger at a homeless shelter and then resisted the officers who attempted to subdue him. Petitioner's counsel declared a doubt as to petitioner's competency to stand trial, and on the date of the competency hearing, petitioner moved to substitute his counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
The trial court, however, refused to hear petitioner's Marsdenmotion until after completing the competency hearing. As all parties concede and as the Court of Appeal correctly found, this was clear error. Following this error by the trial court, petitioner made a series of what later proved to be disastrous decisions. Specifically, after petitioner was declared competent to stand trial, he withdrew his Marsdenmotion and successfully invoked his right to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. At the same time, petitioner rejected the prosecution's offer of probation. Shortly thereafter, the matter proceeded to a bench trial at which petitioner, representing himself, was convicted and sentenced not to probation, but to 17 years in prison.
Though the Court of Appeal found that the trial court's failure to hear petitioner's Marsdenmotion prior to his competency proceeding was error, it found that petitioner was not prejudiced by the error because, "even if he was initially motivated to make the [Faretta] request because of the court's prior delay in hearing his Marsdenmotion," petitioner had a constitutional right to represent himself and he "knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel."
Given the Court of Appeal's finding of no prejudice, I join my colleagues in voting to deny review. I am nevertheless troubled by the result here. Again, there is no dispute that an error occurred, one in which petitioner was denied the right to request new counsel at the appropriate time. Then, when petitioner was belatedly given the right to make his Marsdenmotion, he decided to withdraw the motion, represent himself, and reject an offer of probation. Petitioner is now in prison serving a 17-year sentence. I accordingly write separately to clarify that our denial of review of this petition for writ of habeas corpus is without prejudice to seeking other appropriate relief, including filing a renewed habeas petition should new, timely, material, and credible information become available demonstrating that counsel's performance was deficient or that petitioner was prejudiced by the trial court's delay in hearing his Marsdenmotion. (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (b)(3)(A).) Our denial is also without prejudice to petitioner's ability to be referred for recall and resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1.)
We Concur: CORRIGAN, J., LIU, J., EVANS, J.