People v. Mendoza CA2/1

Filed 10/24/14 P. v. Mendoza CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B250506

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA123213) v.

RICHARD MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Patrick T. Meyers, Judge. Affirmed. Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant Richard Mendoza appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree burglary. Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for self-representation made after the verdict on the charged offenses but before the bifurcated trial on prior offense enhancement allegations. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the untimely motion. BACKGROUND 1. The burglary Because defendant’s sole appellate contention pertains to his motion for self- representation after the jury convicted him of burglary at the first phase of the bifurcated trial, we set forth only a cursory summary of the evidence presented at trial. On the morning of January 12, 2012, defendant spoke to Maria Almaraz, asking which of two homes on the same lot she lived in. He then broke into the other home, where Maria Guerrero resided with her family, and took a black backpack, an Apple laptop computer, and some computer games and game consoles belonging to Guerrero’s grandson. Almaraz saw defendant climb out the window of Guerrero’s grandson’s bedroom and shouted at him and to Guerrero, who confronted defendant and demanded he surrender what he had stolen. Defendant denied stealing anything and walked to a bus stop, where he changed shirts. When a police officer stopped across the street from the bus stop, defendant abandoned the black backpack and a second backpack and ran. Police officers chased defendant and caught him. Almaraz and Guerrero identified him. The missing computer, game consoles, and games were recovered from the black backpack. 2. Verdicts and sentencing In bifurcated proceedings, the jury convicted defendant of a single count of first degree burglary and found a person other than an accomplice was present in the home. The court found defendant had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions within the scope of the “Three Strikes” law and Penal Code section 667, subdivision