No. 19-6437

Lee E. Peyton v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2019-10-31
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: confrontation-clause courtroom-protocol criminal-procedure due-process due-process-clause farretta-v-california fourteenth-amendment judicial-discretion pro-se pro-se-representation sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a trial court to deny a defendant's request to proceed pro se based on the judge's accusations of the defendant's inability to conform behavior and anticipated disruption, while passing on the defendant's own credibility in making the factual determination

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : This Petition presents an issue of fundamental importance Te all defendarts' face ing criminal prosecution in California: Whether The Sixth and Foucteesth Amend ments to the Unihed steles Constitution, as indecpreted by this Courtin Faretla V. California, 422 u.8.%0b( 1415), pecmits trial courts +e deny a request +s proceed pro se, inthe fire instance and onthe grounds of the presiding judges ace~ usations thatthe “defendant has demonzteated an inability te confarm his behavior tote cules of procedure and courttoom prétecel; and accusition of anticipated disrughion®, and then pass onhis own ecedtbility in making tthe Factaal determin ation. : 1, Consxstent wicth FARETIAS~ ENDUAEY BASED Mule MAY ATRIAL COueT UNDER THE SOXTH AMENDMENT Counsel AND CONFRONTATION CLAUSES AND FoukTENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS" CLAUSE, DENY A DEFENDAMIS REQUEST TO PROCEED PLD SE, LATHE FEST YNSTANCE, DN THE GROUND OF THE Ples tore audee's Accusatxon THAT T We OEFENOMIK DEMONSTAATED AN XAAGLLITY YO CONFORM HXS BEHAVEOR To THE LuLES OF PLOCEDULE AND COUOTROOM PLATOCAL, DL, ACCUSATON OF , “AANECAPATED DLSKUPTLON ) WHILE PASSING ON HXS Onn CREOLGXLAYY Xn MALLE THE FACTUAL DETERMANAYZON 3 THE CONTERT OF A FALETTA Hentanie? 1. | WHEA A STATES Reveewxue CounTS TAKE THES CoukTs CLEAGLY ESTAGLISNED RuLs OF LAW ANG MODEPY Of TeaNsfOkM THxs courts ; RULES. xet¥o A SPECTF LC LEGAL RULE NOT AnNounceD BY THIS COURT, : ANNO SUCH TeANsFokmition RESULTS <A DEPRCVINE THE OEFE NDANT . or SUBSTANT AL And PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, ANO FUNDAMENTAL FALK« . NESSTO WHXCH THE LAW EUTIVLES HM, Mav THE “SuPEvxSORY POWERS BE. USED AND THE CASE OXSMLSSED, As A REMEDY TO OLSCHPLENE STATE + COURTS Fok BLATANT ‘OISEEGAGD OF THE BINDS OF ALYZCLE TIL OF THE ConsverTion 2 ti

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-10-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 2, 2019)

Attorneys

Lee E. Peyton
Lee E. Peyton — Petitioner
Lee E. Peyton — Petitioner