In People v. Jackio (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 445, defendant waived his right to counsel and proceeded to trial on first degree burglary, two counts of assault with a firearm, attempted murder, two counts of first degree robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm with various arming and great bodily injury allegations. (Id., at p. 449.) When the Faretta waiver was taken, defendant was warned of the dangers of self-representation and that he could receive a life sentence if convicted. (Id., at p. 451.) The Court of Appeal conceded that no decision of the United States Supreme Court or California Supreme Court "directly answers the specific question posed in this case: whether a defendant wishing to represent himself at trial must be advised of the full range of punishments he could face if convicted." (Id., at p. 452.) The court acknowledged that advisement of the maximum punishment is important when a Faretta defendant waives his right to counsel and enters a plea of guilty. (Id., at p. 454.) But in those cases where the defendant makes a Faretta waiver and proceeds to trial, it is difficult to predict what sentence terms will be imposed if the jury convicts on some counts and acquits on other counts. (Ibid.) The more reasonable solution "is to require the trial court to advise a defendant desiring to represent himself at trial of the maximum punishment that could be imposed if the defendant is found guilty of the crimes, with enhancements, alleged at the time the defendant moves to represent himself." (Id., at pp. 454-455.) The court in Jackio concluded that the Faretta warning and general reference to "life in prison" was adequate and did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (Id., at p. 456.)