People v. Rauls CA2/7

Filed 6/30/14 P. v. Rauls CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B248085

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA399570) v.

DARRELL RAULS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dennis J. Landin, Judge. Affirmed.

Darrell Rauls, in pro. per.; and Brandie Devall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Darrell Rauls broke into a car parked inside a residential complex and was found sitting in the driver’s seat by a security guard. Rauls fled. He was later arrested, charged with second degree burglary and convicted of that offense following a jury trial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Arraignment on the Felony Complaint A felony complaint charged Rauls with second degree burglary in violation of 1 Penal Code section 459. After Rauls failed to appear at his July 6, 2012 arraignment, but 2 with sufficient excuse (a “miss-out”), his arraignment was continued. Rauls was not represented by counsel. On July 20, 2012 Rauls appeared for arraignment on the felony complaint and requested to represent himself. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta)). However, Rauls did not complete the advisement and waiver of right to counsel form (commonly referred to as a Faretta waiver). As the trial court observed, although Rauls signed the form, he failed to initial one or more boxes indicating his understanding of, and agreement with, the explanations of the constitutional right to self-representation, the dangers and advantages of self- representation and the charges and consequences. Rauls also made handwritten comments on the form. Next to the uninitialed boxes, Rauls wrote that the accompanying explanations of the right to self-representation and of the necessity to act as his own lawyer, without the assistance of a professional attorney, were “inconsistent” with the Sixth Amendment, Faretta and McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168, 179 [104 S. Ct. 944,79 L.Ed.2d 122]. Immediately above his signature, Rauls wrote, “This is not a waiver of the right to have the assistance of counsel during pretrial & trial proceedings.”