People v. Brumfield CA2/2

Filed 8/14/14 P. v. Brumfield CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B252495

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA083016-01) v.

PAUL BRUMFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:*

Defendant and appellant, Paul Brumfield, appeals from a judgment entered following a jury verdict finding appellant guilty of one count of petty theft with priors under Penal Code section 666, subdivision (a).1 An information filed in February 2013 charged appellant in count 1 with robbery (§ 211) and in count 2 with felony petty theft. Pursuant to sections 1170, subdivision (h)(3) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), the information further alleged that appellant suffered a prior conviction for a serious

* ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J ., CHAVEZ, J., FERNS, J.†

† Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

felony. As to count 1 only, the information alleged a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). As to both counts, the information alleged appellant had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and had been convicted of four prior felonies within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). Appellant pled not guilty. The trial court heard and denied appellant’s motion for other counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. A trial commenced in June 2013, but the trial court declared a mistrial and adjourned the proceedings after it declared it had a doubt as to appellant’s mental competence under section 1368. Following an August 2013 mental competency hearing, the trial court determined appellant was then mentally competent to stand trial and resumed the criminal proceedings. At the beginning of the October 2013 trial, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to bifurcate trial on his prior convictions. Appellant thereafter stipulated to the existence of eight prior convictions for the purpose of the allegations in count 2, in exchange for the prosecution’s stipulation not to mention them at trial. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury found appellant not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2. In a bench trial immediately following, the trial court found true beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had served four prior prison terms and suffered a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years on count 2, doubled to a sentence of six years pursuant to sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.2, subdivisions (a) through (d). It denied appellant’s motion under section 1385, subdivision (a) to strike the strike prior, but granted the motion as to the four prior prison terms. The information was filed as a result of an incident on January 6, 2013, when Home Depot loss-prevention agent John Miranda observed appellant unwrap merchandise, place it in his pockets, and leave the store without paying for those items. Miranda, in plain clothes, first observed appellant in the store’s hardware department,