People v. Parento

Opinion

STEIN, J.

—A jury found (1) that Richard Lee Parento had committed the felony of second degree burglary, (2) that he was legally sane at the time of the commission of that crime, and (3) that he had suffered the prior convictions and had served the separate prison terms alleged in the information filed against him.

1

Appellate counsel, pursuant to

People

v.

Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071], requested this court to conduct an

[1380]

independent review of the record to determine whether the appeal presented any arguable appellate issues. We did so. Our review disclosed that Parento had elected to represent himself, that he sought a continuance on the day of trial, which request was denied; that he then requested appointment of counsel, which request also was denied; and that he then refused to participate further in the proceedings, and thus was absent from the trial. Accordingly, we directed counsel to brief the following issue:

“Did the trial court err in allowing the trial to proceed in appellant’s absence and without representation by counsel?” (See

People

v.

Brownlee

(1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 921, 931 [141 Cal.Rptr. 685];

People

v.

Carroll

(1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 135, 142-144 [189 Cal.Rptr. 327].)

Discussion

I.

Parento’s Request to Represent Himself

*