Hearing Gets Complicated in Case of Pro Per Defendant Who Knows, Demands His Rights

Share:

By Michael Wheeler

SACRAMENTO, CA—Deputy District Attorney Jeff Harry had planned on a preliminary hearing Monday here in Sacramento County Superior Court.

But defendant Robert Rojas had something else in mind.

Representing himself on a pro per basis, Rojas alleged that he had not been allowed full access to the rights granted him when he decided to defend himself from prison, and submitted his complaint to DDA Harry and Judge James Arguelles.

It was a court order Judge Steven White signed April 23 allowing him to defend himself. Rojas told the court that he was not looking for immediate relief, but instead wanted to give the court and Harry time to review his motion.

“The order violates the Equal Protection Clause and due process of law in violation of the 14 Amendment to the United States Constitution. Basically more or less, I was basically deprived multiple pro per rights and privileges that are required to pro per defendants,” Rojas said.

Rojas explained he had not received pro per rights and privileges that he had received while interned in Santa Clara County and that other inmates receive throughout the state.

“I’m treated and discriminated against strictly for the fact that I’m a mentally ill patient that’s incarcerated inside of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” the defendant argued.

Judge Arguelles told the court that he felt he had two options: he could either grant more privileges to Rojas, which may or may not be available due to Covid-19 restrictions, or he could appoint counsel for Rojas.

Considering the appointment of counsel, he mused, “At some point we’ve gotta fish or cut bait.”

The judge also expressed concern that he had limited control over what privileges Rojas might receive while in jail, saying, “Ultimately, CDCR is in control of what they will or will not provide.”

DDA Harry had a different concern, informing the court that he did not want to be put in a situation where he might have to dismiss the case due to the expiration of Rojas’ 30 day time limit. Judge Arguelles agreed with Harry’s concern.

“You’ve gotta choose here. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, ‘I’m not ready to go, and I’m not waiving time.’ If you say you’re not waiving time, you refuse to waive time, then I say let’s just do it today.”

Rojas strongly pushed back on the idea that he was using legal chicanery to get a dismissal. Instead, he stated repeatedly that he had not been provided with the necessary supplies and abilities to defend himself, lacking stationary, the ability to make “confidential legal phone calls,” and more.

As an example, he cited a court order that had been made on April 28 but which he had not received until May 7. He was not playing games, he argued, but events that were outside of his control had prevented him from making a competent defense.

“I’ve asked for discovery on several occasions. I’ve filed multiple motions for discovery. I’ve filed multiple orders with this court regarding pro per privileges that are reasonable, and that are not, you know, asking for a car or a cheeseburger and a milkshake. I’ve asked for reasonable pro per privileges and rights that are entitled to any other pro per inmate and I’ve not received that.”

Judge Arguelles emphasized that he was not trying to inconvenience Rojas or deprive him of anything, but that there were certain protocols within which they must work.

“I’m not trying to jam you, but we are limited by what we can do by Covid. You have to be transported. There are limitations to the system that we’re all trying to work with here. If you want more time to litigate this issue, if you want more time to contact witnesses and do everything you want to do, then ask for more time. Ask for a continuance, and I’ll grant it,” said the judge.

Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise which would involve Rojas not waiving time for the time being. Instead, Judge Arguelles scheduled a hearing at 1:30 on Thursday to rule on the petition that Rojas had submitted, while the date for the preliminary hearing, originally planned for Monday, was set for May 19.

By so scheduling, the prosecution was given breathing space between court dates and the end of Rojas’ 30 day period, which expires on June 7. DDA Harry was also able to provide Rojas with discovery at the end of the hearing.

Michael Wheeler is a junior at UC Davis, where he studies History and Economics. He is from Walnut Creek, California.


To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Share:

About The Author

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for