People v. Asare CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Feb 6, 2025 No. B329348MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a self-represented defendant has no constitutional right to confer with standby counsel and that the defendant could not withdraw his admission to a sentencing enhancement. The court remanded the case for a hearing to determine the specific amount of additional presentence credits owed to the defendant.

Issues

Does a self-represented defendant have a constitutional right to confer with standby counsel during a probation revocation hearing?
May a defendant challenge a sentencing enhancement admission after failing to move to withdraw the plea?
Is the defendant entitled to a remand for the determination of additional presentence credits?

Disposition. Remanded in part; affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no constitutional right to confer with such counsel, where, as here, appellant has knowingly and voluntarily chosen self-representation.”

“He may not accept the favorable aspects of his negotiated disposition while at the same time jettison the unfavorable aspects thereof.”

“The trial court is ordered to conduct a hearing on additional credits and send a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”

Filed 2/6/25 P. v. Asare CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B329348 (Super. Ct. No. BA497244) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING CHARLES ABABAIO ASARE, REHEARING [CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 22, 2025, be modified as follows: 1. On page 3, at the end of the second full paragraph insert the following: “Both appellant and respondent agree that appellant is entitled to an additional unknown amount of additional credits. Both agree that a remand is necessary for resolution, factually, of the amount of credit.” 2. On page 3, third full paragraph, delete the following sentences: “The trial court shall forward a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed” and insert the following: “The trial court is ordered to conduct a hearing on additional credits and send a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.” This modification changes the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. CODY, J.

Filed 1/22/25 P. v. Asare CA2/6 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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.

People v. Asare CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. CODY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CHARLES ASARE,

GILBERT, P. J.

CODY, J.

AI Brief