By Mia Machado
SACRAMENTO – A murder defendant’s surprising request for self-representation Friday here in Sacramento County Superior Court prompted a stern warning from Judge Patrick Marlette and raised questions about the defendant’s mental health.
Court began with a request by private defense attorney David Bonilla to move Trey Devaughn Hallman’s preliminary hearing to October 23.
Hallman, facing felony charges of murder and attempted murder, stunned all parties in court by requesting to go pro per, or to represent himself for the continuation of his case.
He later admitted it was Bonilla he was displeased with as his attorney, and tried to replace him. The court rejected that bid.
Hallman’s request prompted Bonilla to apologize for the new revelation about his client, and for Judge Patrick Marlette to attempt to dissuade the defendant of his decision. 
Addressing the 26-year-old defendant, Judge Marlette said, “If you live to be 100 years old, and if you agree to sit down with an interview with Bob Haldeman, you will never make a worse decision than going pro per on a murder case.”
Judge Marlette advised Hallman on the benefits of having a lawyer with a comprehensive understanding of the system, and strongly advised the defendant to delay his decision by a week, so he could consult with his defense attorney before requesting to go pro per.
Judge Marlette’s warning, however, that Hallman was “walking into a buzzsaw,” proved ineffectual when the defendant reiterated that he had “given this adequate time and thought, and would like to go pro per” that day.
With Hallman’s decision to go pro per seemingly concrete, defense lawyer Bonilla informed Judge Marlette that prior to the day’s hearing he had been exploring the idea of consulting a psychologist for a possible NGRI plea, or “not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Bonilla insisted that this consideration was not intended to interfere with the defendant’s wishes, but to protect him, and advised the court to explore what type of person should be allowed to go pro per under Faretta advisements (waiver of right to counsel).
Agreeing with Bonilla, Judge Marlette decided to appoint a doctor to determine whether Hallman was capable of representing himself. After explaining to the defendant the importance of getting a doctor’s opinion on the matter, Hallman asked, “If this proves too difficult for me, would I have the option to receive another counsel?”
With Hallman’s question, it became clear to Judge Marlette that the defendant may more appropriately be seeking a Marsden motion, which can fire a court-appointed lawyer if they prove to be ineffectual.
Judge Marlette followed by asking, “Is this more unhappiness with Mr. Bonilla, or is it that you just plain want to represent yourself, no matter who your attorney is?”
“I would say the former,” Hallman replied.
With this clarification, Judge Marlette decided that, instead of exploring Hallman’s pro per request and the appointment of a doctor, it was prudent to pursue a Marsden motion—later that day, he denied the defendant’s request for a new lawyer.
Hallman’s preliminary hearing was continued to the date defense counsel Bonilla requested, Oct. 23.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
