In People v. Silfa (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1311, defendant filled out a Faretta form, which the court went over in detail with defendant. After a lengthy exchange, the court found the defendant did not understand the consequences of his contemplated act and denied his request to represent himself. ( Id. at pp. 1315-1321.) The appellate court found that the trial court improperly used the Faretta form to test the defendant's competency to act as his own lawyer, noting that such forms only should be used as a means by which to impress upon a defendant the dangers of self-representation so that his waiver would be knowing and intelligent. The Silfa opinion acknowledges the Faretta form's utility as "a means by which the judge and the defendant seeking self-representation may have a meaningful dialogue concerning the dangers and responsibilities of self-representation" and acknowledged that "the advisements in the form also serve to warn the defendant of the complexities of the task about to be undertaken." ( Id. at p. 1322.)