People v. Orosco
| Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | D079723 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse OROSCO, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Steven S. Lubliner, Petaluma, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, and Melissa A. Mandel, Kathryn A. Kirschbaum, and Joseph C. Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Jesse Orosco appeals his conviction for one count of assault on a peace officer by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. ( Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c).)1 He argues: (1) there is no substantial evidence that the victim was a peace officer; (2) the trial court erroneously denied his request to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ( Faretta ); (3) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the definition of a peace officer and his duties; and (4) the abstract of judgment should be corrected.
We find as a matter of law based on the undisputed evidence that the victim was working as a peace officer at the time of the incident. We conclude, however, that the trial court violated Orosco's Sixth Amendment rights by denying his Faretta request for self-representation based on a finding that he was "unable to sufficiently represent himself." There is no substantial evidence that Orosco was mentally incompetent to represent himself under the applicable legal standard, i.e., that he "suffers from a severe mental illness to the point where he ... cannot carry out the basic tasks needed to present the defense without the help of counsel." ( People v. Johnson (2012) 53 Cal.4th 519, 530, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 267 P.3d 1125 ( Johnson ).) Because the error is reversible per se, we must reverse the judgment. Accordingly, we need not decide the other issues raised.
Daniel Chism was a deputy sheriff for San Bernardino County assigned to the transportation division at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga. The transportation division is responsible for transporting inmates to and from jail, branch courts, and state facilities.
On the morning of January 8, 2021, Deputy Chism was performing his duties at the West Valley Detention Center, getting inmates ready to go to court. Orosco was one of the higher security inmates. While Deputy Chism was changing Orosco's leg shackles, Orosco began yelling down the hallway at another inmate, ignoring Deputy Chism's instructions to stop. Deputy Chism decided to move Orosco down the hallway to a holding cell. He held onto Orosco's shirt to direct him down the hallway. Orosco pulled away, then struck Deputy Chism in the face with his left elbow. Deputy Chism suffered major swelling and a laceration to his temple, requiring three stitches. The entire incident was captured on video and played for the jury at trial.
On March 1, 2021, Orosco was charged with one count of assault on a peace officer by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. ( § 245, subd. (c).) The matter was assigned to the Honorable Corey G. Lee for a preliminary hearing on May 17, 2021. This was Orosco's first appearance before Judge Lee.
Immediately before the preliminary hearing, Orosco filled out a preprinted Faretta waiver form. The bailiff asked Orosco to read over the form and make sure it was correct, but did not explain anything on the form to him.
Orosco initialed a box stating he had been advised of the penalties and consequences if found guilty. He also initialed boxes stating "[t]hat it is generally not a wise choice to represent myself in a criminal matter," "[t]hat the Court will not give me any special consideration because I am representing myself," "[t]hat I will be opposed by a trained experienced prosecuting attorney," "[t]hat I must comply with all rules of law, criminal procedure and evidence," "[t]hat incompetency of counsel as an issue on appeal is waived," "[t]hat any disruptive behavior on my part may result in the Court terminating my pro per status," and "[t]hat if I cannot afford an attorney I have a right to one appointed at no cost to me."
Another line on the form read, Orosco initially checked the "DO" box, then crossed it out, initialed his correction, and checked the "DO NOT" box instead.
The form had another line stating, "I have been involved in ________ criminal proceedings in the past and I feel I am capable of representing myself." Orosco initialed this line, crossed out his initials, then initialed it again. He did not write anything on the blank line.
Orosco initialed the line stating: "GIVING UP (WAIVER OF) RIGHT TO ATTORNEY: I hereby give up (waive) my right to an attorney and I choose to represent myself during all proceedings."
Orosco also initialed a line stating, "I have no difficulties in reading and understanding this form." Orosco signed under penalty of perjury and dated the form under another line stating,
At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel stated that Orosco was requesting a Faretta hearing. Orosco confirmed that he wanted to represent himself. The trial court then questioned Orosco about his decision. The court noted: Orosco answered, "Yes, ma'am."
In response to further questioning by the trial court, Orosco confirmed that he understood the penalties and consequences he faced if found guilty. He also confirmed his understanding that he would not be given any special consideration and would be treated just as one of the attorneys; that he would be expected to know the law and comply with the rules of criminal procedure and evidence; that he would be opposed by a trained and experienced attorney; that he would be waiving incompetency of counsel as an appellate issue; that his pro per status could be terminated for disruptive behavior; and that if he could not afford an attorney, he had a right to have one appointed for him at no cost.
Orosco answered each of these questions politely by saying, "Yes, ma'am."
The court then questioned Orosco about whether he was requesting the services of an interpreter. Based on its reading of the Faretta form, the court said, "Seems like you are not; right?" Orosco initially answered that he was requesting the services of an interpreter. When the court noted that Orosco had not checked the box to request an interpreter, Orosco responded, The court stated, "if you don't know how to fill this form out, I don't know if I can trust you to represent yourself." The court then asked Orosco what language he needed to have interpreted, and Orosco replied "English." The court noted, Orosco then immediately clarified that he was not in fact requesting the services of an interpreter—consistent with what he had stated on the Faretta form.
Orosco told the court that he was born on February 8, 2001, and had graduated from 12th grade and received a diploma.
The court questioned Orosco about the line of the Faretta form stating, "[I] have been involved in, blank, criminal proceedings in the past and [I] feel [I] am capable of representing [myself]." Orosco explained, "I thought that meant that if I was pro per in the past." After the court gave Orosco an opportunity to read it over again, he said,
The court then stated: The entire Faretta hearing is just over five pages of transcript.
In a handwritten order denying the Faretta motion, the court ruled as follows:
The court did not order any psychological or psychiatric examination to assess Orosco's mental competence to represent himself. After the denial of his Faretta motion, Orosco was represented by appointed counsel at both his preliminary hearing and trial.
After a two-day jury trial with a single witness (Deputy Chism), the jury convicted Orosco of assault on a peace officer by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The court sentenced him to 16 months in prison.
Orosco first argues that his conviction for assault on a peace officer must be reversed because there is no substantial evidence Deputy Chism was working as a peace officer at the time of the incident. Because the material facts are undisputed, and the issue raised is one of statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial