P. v. Barnhill
This appeal addresses the adequacy of a defendant's assertions of the right of self-representation during trial, and to reappointment of counsel during sentencing proceedings. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta).) Following a jury trial in which his request for self-representation was denied, and he was represented by counsel, defendant and appellant Henry Barnhill was convicted of three counts each of pimping (Pen. Code,[1] § 266h) and of human trafficking (§ 236.1, subd. (a)). He was also convicted of one count of using a tear gas weapon other than in self-defense (§ 12403.7, subd. (g)).
After the convictions but before sentencing, Barnhill's renewed request to represent himself was granted, and he brought a new trial motion and numerous discovery requests. After several continuances of sentencing, his motion for new trial was denied. At the same hearing he requested the reappointment of counsel for sentencing, but the trial court denied the request and imposed sentence. At the outset of trial, he had admitted three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He received an aggregate term of 12 years four months.
On appeal, Barnhill challenges the judgment of conviction, contending his requests for self-representation made at the outset of trial should have been granted. He additionally challenges the imposition of sentence, arguing that although he was acting in propria persona during the hearing on his new trial motion, he was nevertheless entitled to the reappointment of counsel for sentencing purposes. He contends the trial court acted contrary to law or abused its discretion in denying all his requests.
We find no abuse of discretion or error and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Barnhill