In People v. Farwell, the Supreme Court today makes it harder generally for a criminal defendant to obtain a reversal because his or her waiver of constitutional rights was allegedly insufficient. The defendant in this particular case, however, is able to overcome the obstacle and has his conviction reversed for driving with a suspended license.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan recites that when a defendant pleads guilty, or, as in Farwell, stipulates to facts establishing guilt, “the record must demonstrate that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his constitutional trial rights,” i.e., the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confrontation. When the trial court advises a defendant of his or her rights, but does so incompletely, whether a waiver was voluntary and intelligent is determined by examining “the totality of the circumstances.”
Farwell argued that a complete failure to advise a defendant should lead to an automatic reversal. The Supreme Court rejects that rule, holding that the “totality of the circumstances test applies in all circumstances where the court fails, either partially or completely, to advise and take waivers of the defendant’s trial rights before accepting a guilty plea.” Nonetheless, using that test, the court concludes Farwell’s conviction should be reversed because “[t]here is no affirmative showing that Farwell understood he was waiving his trial rights by virtue of the stipulation entered on his behalf.”
The court reverses a 2-1 decision by the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal. It also disapproves a 2011 opinion by the Fourth District, Division Three, and a 1999 opinion by the Fourth District, Division One.
