P. v. Mays CA2/1

Filed 8/1/13 P. v. Mays CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B234843

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA374931) v.

WILLIE MAYS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John S. Fisher, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Karli Sager, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Russell A. Lehman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent ______

Willie Mays appeals from the judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of attempted second degree commercial burglary and the court found the prior prison term allegations true. Mays argues that the court erred in revoking his pro per status at the commencement of the trial and in excluding him from the courtroom during a portion of the trial. Those arguments have no merit. We agree, however, that Mays’s custody credits should be recalculated. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW In the early morning hours Mays attempted the burglary of a Los Angeles dress shop. The store’s security camera captured Mays attempting to enter the store through its shattered front window. Jang Lee, the owner of the store, happened to be present and heard the window break. As Lee walked toward the front of the store, he saw Mays outside. Lee testified that he got a good look at Mays for approximately five seconds before Mays ran away. Lee called 911 and described the suspect as a black man wearing a red ski cap and dark clothing. The video from the store’s surveillance camera showed Mays wearing a red knit cap, using a cane or crowbar to try to clear glass from in front of the store. Police officers detained Mays shortly after the 911 call as he walked down a sidewalk near the dress shop. Mays was wearing dark clothing and in his backpack the officers found a red knit cap, a hammer, three gloves and a seven to eight-inch blade. Other officers drove Lee to Mays’s location and Lee identified Mays as the person he had seen at the window of his dress shop. Lee identified Mays again at trial. In an interview following his arrest Mays confessed to the police that he broke the window. A. Revocation of Self-Representation The court granted May’s request to represent himself at the trial. On the first day of trial, prior to jury selection, the court asked the prosecutor to “explain who she plans to call and in a nutshell what they would say so that I can get a feel for the time estimate.” Before the prosecutor finished her second sentence, Mays interjected: “I object to all of that.” The court responded: “Just a second. Let her talk and I’ll let you be heard.” The prosecutor was about to describe a field show-up