Gates v. Super. Ct.
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel if he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 807.) Such a request must be unequivocal and must also be made within a reasonable time before the commencement of trial. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1365.) In ruling on such a request, the court should consider (1) the quality of counsel’s representation, (2) the defendant’s prior proclivity to substitute counsel, (3) the reasons for the request, (4) the length and stage of the proceedings, and (5) the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128.)
Comments on Gates v. Super. Ct.