People v. Willard CA2/7

Filed 7/16/14 P. v. Willard CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B250588 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA362410)

v.

CHARLES ROBERT WILLARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gail R. Feuer and Henry J. Hall, Judges. Affirmed.

Charles R. Willard, in pro. per., and Renee Rich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

This case comes before us a second time. Charles Robert Willard was convicted by a jury on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon after he threatened two men on a bus with a knife, one of whom he then stabbed.1 In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found Willard had suffered two prior serious felony convictions and one prior juvenile adjudication for robbery, making him eligible for sentencing under the three strikes law, and he had served separate prison terms for felonies (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667.5, subd. (b)). Willard was sentenced to concurrent aggregate state prison terms of 30 years to life. On appeal, we concluded the evidence was insufficient that Willard was at least 16 years old at the time he committed the robbery, which was the subject of his juvenile adjudication. We affirmed the judgment of conviction and remanded for a possible retrial on the prior strike conviction , noting the trial court may choose to exercise its discretion to dismiss one of the prior strike convictions for robbery in 1987 because they arose from the same incident. (People v. Willard (Jan. 8, 2013, B233492) [nonpub. opn.])2 On remand, Willard requested a jury trial on the juvenile strike allegation. Prior to the People’s presentation of evidence, the trial court heard and denied Willard’s motion to replace his appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118). Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found Willard was the person who had suffered the prior juvenile adjudication (Pen. Code, § 1025, subd. (c)). At trial, the People introduced evidence consisting of certified copies of various documents, including the pleadings and minute orders from the superior court file of the 1978 juvenile adjudication for robbery, a chronology from the California Youth Authority (now Division of Juvenile Justice), and a California Law Enforcement