People v. Hayden CA3

Filed 12/15/14 P. v. Hayden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074993

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F04903)

v.

WINZER DEANDRE HAYDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Winzer Deandre Hayden shot Wesley Wheeler dead after Wheeler had been fighting with one of defendant’s relatives. A jury found defendant guilty of Wheeler’s first degree murder and found that he personally and intentionally discharged the firearm, causing death. The court sentenced him to 25 years in prison for the murder and a consecutive 25 years for the gun use enhancement. On appeal, defendant raises the following three contentions: (1) the instructions regarding the provocation to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder were wrong because they implied an objective standard; (2) the trial court erred when it denied

1

his motion to represent himself; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him for both the murder and the gun use enhancement. We disagree, holding: (1) the instructions were correct, as another appellate court has also found in a recent published opinion; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s untimely motion to represent himself that came on the day of sentencing and was made just after the court’s denial of his motion to replace appointed counsel; and (3) the California Supreme Court has specifically rejected defendant’s sentencing argument. We therefore affirm. DISCUSSION I The Jury Instructions Correctly Told The Jury Of The Subjective Standard To Reduce First Degree Murder To Second Degree Defendant contends that the standard jury instructions erroneously told the jury that provocation must be reasonable to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder. Defendant’s argument focuses on two instructions given here, CALCRIM Nos. 522 (provocation and its effect on the degree of murder) and 570 (voluntary manslaughter: heat of passion). We disagree with defendant’s reading of the instructions, as has a recent published opinion, which we follow. A Instructions Given Here The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 521, which stated in pertinent part that the mental state required for first degree murder was met “if the People have proved [defendant] acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. The defendant acted willfully if he intended to kill. The defendant acted deliberate[ly] if he carefully weighed the considerations for and against the choice and knowing the consequences decided to kill. A defendant acted with premeditation if he decided to kill before completing the acts that caused death.” “A decision to kill made rashly, impulsively or without careful consideration is not deliberate and premeditated.” “The People have the