People v. Matthews CA2/5

Filed 9/25/14 P. v. Matthews CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B251898

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA083230) v.

FREDERICK MATTHEWS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric C. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Jin H. Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Frederick Matthews of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.1 The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison, imposed all mandatory fines and fees, and granted presentence custody credits. Defendant contends reversal is required because the court denied his request for advisory counsel. He also contends the court erred in calculating his custody credits, and the Attorney General agrees. We affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant struck a 71-year-old female bartender and took her purse on November 4, 2011. The incident was captured by a surveillance camera, and a warrant was issued for defendant’s arrest. Police arrested defendant on April 2, 2012, after finding him in possession of a woman’s wallet with the victim’s identification inside. Defendant was initially represented by the public defender’s office. The court denied defendant’s Marsden2 motion on June 20, 2012. On the same day, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial, and the court suspended the criminal proceedings. Based on reports by three different psychiatrists,3 the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated the criminal proceedings on January 4, 2013. On February 21, 2013, defense counsel informed the prosecution and the court that defendant sought to represent himself. (See Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.) The court asked defendant whether he could be ready in a month, and defendant said he would do his best. The following colloquy took place next: