People v. Moreno CA2/5

Filed 7/29/14 P. v. Moreno CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B250755

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA073798) v.

ARMANDO MORENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan M. Speer, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey Lewis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Defendant and appellant Armando Moreno appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Defendant contends his motion for self-representation under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta) was timely, and even if it was untimely, the trial court did not properly inquire into the reasons for his request before denying it. We hold that defendant’s Faretta motion was untimely, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion, and affirm the judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

On May 8, 2013, defendant was charged with possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Defendant appeared before the court four times prior to trial. On the first day of trial, before prospective jurors were called, the court inquired, “You had something you wanted to tell the Court.” The following exchange occurred: “[Defendant]: I want to go pro per for the reason he’s not helping me. He’s going to throw me in the fire for what’s going on, you know. I’ve had a few arguments with him. “[The Court]: Hold on. Are you asking for a new lawyer or go pro per? “[Defendant]: I want to go pro per. “[The Court]: Are you ready to proceed – – “[Defendant]: Yes. “[The Court]: – – With trial today? “[Defendant]: No.