The Court of Appeal held that the trial court committed reversable error by conducting an inadequate Faretta colloquy where appellant had twice been found incompetent to stand trial and had spent roughly two years at the state hospital in Napa, and where the trial court judge asked only four substantive questions during the Faretta colloquy, none of which “adequately informed appellant of the consequences of self-representation or inquired about his well-documented mental health issues.”
^