The People v. Howard CA3

Filed 8/26/13 P. v. Howard CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072183

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F02682)

v.

ELISHA AKIM HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Elisha Akim Howard guilty of carjacking Tuan Nguyen (Pen. Code,1 § 215, subd. (a); count three), carjacking Michael Nguyen (count four), second degree robbery of Tuan Nguyen (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count five), second degree robbery of Michael Nguyen (count six), evading with wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); counts seven & twelve), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count nine), and unlawful driving of a motor

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); counts eleven & thirteen).2 The jury found that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) in the commission of counts three through six. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 36 years, eight months. On appeal, defendant contends (1) his sentence on count five should have been stayed pursuant to section 654 or, in the alternative, run concurrent to count three; and (2) the trial court erroneously granted his motion for self-representation in violation of his federal constitutional right to counsel. Disagreeing, we shall affirm. FACTS3 Prior to April 8, 2009, defendant had been driving a white car for a few days. On that date, he picked up Larry Armstrong and went to a grocery store. Defendant had a firearm. Shortly after midnight on April 8, 2009, brothers Tuan and Michael Nguyen4 drove a compact car to the grocery store. Tuan saw the driver of the white car (defendant) speaking to a man who was outside the car. Tuan drove his car to the front of the store where he purchased soda from a vending machine. Before Tuan could return to the driver‟s seat, a man in a ski mask (evidently the man who had spoken with defendant) pointed a gun at Tuan and said, “Give me everything you got.” Tuan gave the man $20.