Does a psychologist's report on appellant's mental competence to stand trial affect his right to represent himself at trial?

Because appellant was competent to stand trial, the trial court did not violate his federal constitutional rights when it granted his request to represent himself. " '[T]he federal constitution is not violated when a trial court permits a mentally ill defendant to represent himself at trial, even if he lacks the mental capacity to conduct the trial proceedings himself, if he is competent to stand trial and his waiver of counsel is

Page 7

voluntary, knowing and intelligent.' [Citation.]" (People v. Taylor (2009) 47 Cal.4th 850, 878.)

Nevertheless, California courts have discretion to deny a request for self-representation if "the defendant suffers from a severe mental illness to the point where he or she 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.) "A trial court need not routinely inquire into the mental competence of a defendant seeking self-representation. It needs to do so only if it is considering denying self-representation due to doubts about the defendant's mental competence." (Ibid.)

"The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion . . . ." (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566.) Appellant has not provided us with sufficient information to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in not conducting an inquiry into his mental competence to represent himself. The record on appeal does not include the psychologist's report on appellant's mental competence to stand trial. It is reasonable to infer that this report was relevant to his mental competence to represent himself. The report was admitted into evidence as the court's exhibit number 1, but neither party has requested that the exhibit be transmitted to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.224.) Appellant does not discuss the contents of the report. Based on its contents, the trial court may have acted within its discretion.