Does the trial judge have the authority to determine whether a defendant is competent to represent himself?

The trial judge had the benefit of observing and interacting with defendant. The court indicated on multiple occasions that it was extremely impressed with defendant's competence and skill in representing himself and that defendant was "very articulate, [and] very well prepared." And while the trial court correctly concluded that defendant's political theories could not serve as a valid legal defense, the mere fact that defendant held fringe political beliefs that inspired his murder of a police officer does not render him incompetent to represent himself. And defendant's decision to present no defensethough ill-advisedwas a valid exercise of his right to control his defense. (See People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 617, 268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127 ["The defendant has the right to present no defense and to take the stand and both confess guilt and request imposition of the death penalty"].)