John J. Pepitone v. State of California

Ninth Circuit

John J. Pepitone v. State of California

449 F.2d 155, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7814

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1971

Docket25958_1

StatusPublished

This text of 449 F.2d 155 (John J. Pepitone v. State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John J. Pepitone v. State of California, 449 F.2d 155, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7814 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, convicted and sentenced for burglary and attempted burglary in the state court, appeals from a denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court.

*156 Appellant, in the state court, requested that his counsel, a Public Defender, be relieved from the case and that he be allowed to represent himself. His sole contention on appeal is that the state court erred in denying his request.

Pursuant to questioning, the state trial judge ascertained appellant did not know the elements of the offense with which he was charged, to wit burglary. The judge then denied his request to represent himself.

A prerequisite to allowing a defendant to represent himself in a criminal proceeding, is that the defendant must understand the charges against him. Hodge v. United States (9 Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 1040, 1043. The defendant understood only that he was charged with burglary. It is clear he was not competent to represent himself.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI