People v. Alejandro CA3

Filed 10/4/24 P. v. Alejandro CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C099044

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22CR2226)

YAHIDA LEESETTE ALEJANDRO,

Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant Yahida Leesette Alejandro purported to waive her right to a jury trial, the trial court found her guilty of robbery, attempted robbery, attempted carjacking, and battery by gassing a peace officer. On appeal, defendant contends we should reverse the judgment because the record does not affirmatively show that she validly waived her right to a jury trial. The People agree, and we do too. We will reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with two counts of robbery, two counts of attempted carjacking, and one count of battery by gassing a peace officer. The People

1

also alleged aggravating circumstances. At a scheduling hearing, defendant purported to waive her right to a jury trial in the following exchange: “[PROSECUTOR]: And I would just ask the Court to take a personal waiver of jury from the defendant at this time. “THE COURT: I will. “[PROSECUTOR]: Thank you. “THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right to a jury trial? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes, but I do not want one. “THE COURT: You do not want a jury trial? “THE DEFENDANT: No. I’d rather just have you judge me. “THE COURT: Okay. So you waive your right to a jury trial? “THE DEFENDANT: I waive my rights. “THE COURT: [Defense counsel], do you join in that waiver? “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I do. “THE COURT: All right. The Court will accept that. We’ll waive jury.” At the ensuing court trial, the trial court found defendant not guilty of the robbery charged in count 1, but guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted robbery; guilty of the robbery charged in count 2; guilty of the attempted carjacking charged in count 3; not guilty of the attempted carjacking charged in count 4; and guilty of the battery charged in count 5. The trial court found one alleged aggravating circumstance true but found the other not true. The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years in prison on the count 2 robbery, a consecutive eight months on the count 1 attempted robbery, a consecutive 10 months on the count 3 attempted carjacking, and a consecutive one year on the count 5 battery, for an aggregate sentence of five years six months in prison.