People v. Best

• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: A155459
• Citation: 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 361,49 Cal.App.5th 747
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wakeen BEST, Defendant and Appellant.

49 Cal.App.5th 747

263 Cal.Rptr.3d 361

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Wakeen BEST, Defendant and Appellant.

A155459

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Filed May 29, 2020

Kevin B. King, by appointment of the Court of Appeal under the First District Appellate Assisted Case System, for Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Ann P. Wathen, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents.

TUCHER, J.

Defendant Wakeen Best appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of animal abuse, burglary, and vandalism.¹ She contends the trial court erred in denying her Faretta motion to represent herself at trial ( Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ) and in failing to instruct the jury on unanimity. We conclude the trial court erred in denying the Faretta motion, and therefore reverse the judgment. While the record establishes that defendant was unlikely to be effective in conducting her own defense, Faretta nevertheless requires she be allowed to represent herself at trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. The Incident

A man parked his car on the seventh floor of the Sutter-Stockton Garage in San Francisco on February 10, 2018, leaving his Chihuahua dog in the car. When he returned to the garage, he saw his dog had been brutally killed. It was a repulsive and sensational crime, the details of which have no bearing on this appeal. A security guard at the garage viewed video clips from the incident and recognized defendant.

Defendant was charged with three felonies: second degree burglary of a vehicle ( Pen. Code, § 459 ; count 1);² killing, maiming, or abusing an animal ( § 597, subd. (a) ; count 2); and vandalism of the vehicle ( § 594, subd. (b)(1) ; count 3). She was also charged with four misdemeanors.

II. The Faretta Motion

Defendant was represented pre-trial by an attorney from the public defender's office. At a March 14, 2018 hearing, the trial court declared a doubt about defendant's competency to stand trial; it appears that defendant refused to face the judge in order to avoid having her image recorded by members of the news media. The court suspended proceedings and appointed experts to evaluate defendant, but then on April 18, 2018 found defendant mentally competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. On June 1, 2018, the matter was continued for trial and a Faretta hearing.

The Faretta hearing took place on June 4, 2018 before a different judge. The court confirmed that defendant had read and initialed each portion of an "Advisement and Waiver of Right to Counsel" form and inquired into defendant's education and awareness of the charges she faced. The court then asked defendant whether she understood that it would not be able to answer clarifying questions for her, that she would be held to the same standard as an attorney, that she had to follow the rules of evidence, that her case would be prosecuted by an experienced district attorney, that she would have to conduct the trial on her own, that she would have to make any post-trial motions on her own, that she would face disadvantages such as limited access to a telephone and legal research, that she would not be granted a continuance of the trial unless she showed good cause, and that the court could terminate her right to self-representation if she engaged in misconduct or obstructed the progress of the trial. Defendant indicated she understood each of these things.

In the course of this colloquy, the court told defendant she could testify at her trial but could not be forced to do so, and asked if she understood; defendant initially responded "Okay," and the court reiterated, "Do you understand that?" Defendant replied, "That I cannot testify?" The court said, "My question is, that you have the right to testify at your trial. But you cannot be forced to testify." Defendant said "Yes," and when the court again asked if she understood, answered, "Yes, I do."

Some of defendant's responses betrayed a lack of understanding of legal concepts and procedure. For instance, when the court asked defendant if she understood she had a right to a speedy trial and a jury trial, defendant expressed confusion about the difference between the two. She seemed to think a speedy trial was one that took place without a jury. When the court asked defendant if she understood that she would have to make appropriate post-trial motions if convicted, and asked whether she knew what post-trial motions were, defendant first described them as "after the trial, the–kind of like the closing argument, closing statement" and "the wants and the desires of the defense to the prosecution and the judge"; asked to clarify, she said she would need to do more research but thought post-trial motions were "a summary of what you probably want to be done or would like to see done or—a summary of the trial of just summing up the—what was—what was clarified at trial before the courts, before the judge, before the People."

Defendant was also uncertain about the meaning of specific intent and general intent crimes. After noting that defendant had indicated on her Faretta form that she understood which of her charges were general intent crimes and which were specific intent crimes, the court asked defendant if she could tell which crime involved which type of intent. Defendant replied "Some are general; some are specific. [¶] They're all—they're all—all of them are general and specific crimes." Defendant then acknowledged that she did not know the difference between general and specific intent crimes but said she would do so by the time of trial, which could commence within two days.

Other responses indicated that defendant had examined the Penal Code and Evidence Code, but that her understanding of the statutory provisions she identified was limited or confused. For instance, she said she had been reading "the Evidence Code of the Penal Code," and that "There is a lot of Penal Codes in the Evidence Code that pertain to different subjects that pertain to different cases. [¶] Depending on what you're looking for, you can look in the index and you could look up different—different Penal Codes that can support—support you in trial ..." When asked for examples, defendant replied, "I know—I'm familiar with Penal Code 123, materializing. I'm—you know, I'm familiar with Penal Code 118, perjury. 115. I'm familiar with Penal Code 131." The court asked defendant, "What's 131?" and defendant answered, "131 is—is when there is evidence—evidence that is submitted that may be—how do I say it? [¶] Evidence that is—evidence that is—I wouldn't say it's—I wouldn't say specifically tampered with. I would say it's evidence that is—evidence that is fraudulent." These responses indicate defendant had examined the code sections she cited, although she did not seem to understand their application.³

When the court asked defendant about what legal defenses she might assert, her discussion of the law verged on incoherence. She told the court, "if you use Penal Code 3, which making retroactive any parts of the [P]enal [C]ode, you could, pretty much, using Penal Code 4, to construct. You can, pretty much, construct in order to—in order to receive the proper outcome in trial. [¶] By reading the different [P]enal [C]ode and looking underneath each and—each subsection of the [P]enal [C]ode, you can find different things that can help you in trial. Like, you could ask for certain things of the jury that if you didn't know to ask for a 1025, or a 1022, or a 1021, you wouldn't know." The court said, "A 1022 or a 1021 of the Penal Code ?" and defendant replied, "Yes, I'm just saying—I'm just using this as example. You wouldn't know—if you didn't know to make it retroactive, you could possibly be overlooked, the things that you want done in your case...."⁴

On the other hand, defendant gave clear and accurate answers to simpler questions. For example, the following colloquy occurred: "[The Court]: Do you understand that you have a right to subpoena witnesses? [¶] [Defendant]: Yes. [¶] [The Court]: Do you understand what that means? [¶] [Defendant]: Yes. [¶] [The Court]: Tell me. [¶] [Defendant]: To call witnesses to the stand, ... to have witnesses come be present in the courtroom [¶] .... [¶] on my behalf. [¶] [The Court]: And do you understand that you have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses? [¶] [Defendant]: Yes, I do. [¶] [The Court]: And do you know what that means? [¶] [Defendant]: That means to ask questions. [¶] [The Court]: And see witnesses testify in open court. [¶] [Defendant]: Yes."

Defendant told the court she had acted in propria persona at a bench trial in San Mateo County between 2007 and 2012 and that she had won the case. The court told defendant it did not find a reference in defendant's "RAP sheet" to a trial or acquittal between 2007 and 2012. Defendant said, "Excuse me, your Honor. I would appreciate not being mistreated here. There is—it is in there. And I know my rights under the universal declaration of human rights in order to be represented." Defendant said she wanted to "be my own voice and no one else be my voice for me."

Before announcing its ruling, the trial court noted that a doubt had recently been declared as to defendant's competence and that another judge had determined defendant was competent to proceed to trial. The court went on: "And I'm not making a determination today whether or not you are competent to proceed to trial. The determination I am making is whether it is clear to me that you fully understand and appreciate the expectations that will be placed on you—" Defendant interjected, "I fully understand" before the court finished its sentence, "—if you represent yourself." The court told defendant that one of the expectations was that she not interrupt the court, and defenda...