FARETTA MOTION

Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
760.835.8210

PEOPLE

v.

STEPHENS

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT

County of San Bernardino

8303 North Haven Avenue

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Case NO: MWV90372

NOTICE OF MOTION

AND FARETTA MOTION

The Defendant, Sharon Stephens wishes to proceed in this case pro se.

The right of self-representation finds support in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, as well as in the English and colonial jurisprudence from which the Amendment emerged. In California law, as in Federal courts, any defendant who makes a knowing intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel to represent themselves as long as they are competent to stand trial. When "a motion to proceed pro se is timely interposed, a trial court must permit a defendant to represent himself upon ascertaining that he has voluntarily and intelligently elected to do so, irrespective of how unwise such a choice might appear to be. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

Furthermore, the defendant's 'technical legal knowledge' is irrelevant to the court's assessment of the defendant's knowing exercise of the right to defend herself." People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128, 137 Cal. Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187 [*8] (Windham), quoting Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 836. Erroneous denial of a Faretta motion is reversible per se. McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168, 177, fn. 8, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122, 104 S. Ct. 944.

How often we hear, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."

To that it is often said, "He who is represented is usually taken for a fool."

September 17, 2010
Court Room 7
8:30 Am