People v. Bland CA5

Filed 2/2/26 P. v. Bland CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088843 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CM-1737) v.

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Marianne Gilbert, Judge. Joshua Davis Bland, in pro. per.; and Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Davis Bland asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts relating to this appeal. We then offered defendant the opportunity to present his own brief by way of a letter. Defendant submitted a letter brief raising a number of issues. Following our complete review of the record on appeal and the separate issues raised by defendant, we affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The District Attorney of Kings County filed a complaint on April 1, 2020, charging defendant with battery on a non-confined person (Pen. Code, § 4501.5;1 count 1), and alleging he had been convicted of prior strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). At defendant’s arraignment, he requested to represent himself, but the trial court denied the request when defendant refused to agree to abide by court rules and procedures. Defense counsel filed approximately four discovery motions pursuant to section 1043 (also known as a Pitchess2 motions). The trial court partially granted one motion on September 22, 2021, denied the second motion without prejudice on December 8, 2021, but partially granted the third motion on June 23, 2023. Defense counsel also filed two motions for an intra-facility transfer of defendant, both of which the trial court denied. The trial court granted defendant’s second request to represent himself on January 30, 2024. Defendant filed a jurisdictional challenge to the proceedings and argued that he was a sovereign citizen3 and had not consented to the authority of the state.