People v. Antolin CA1/5

Filed 1/12/15 P. v. Antolin CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138465 v. JESSE LIN ANTOLIN, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC073522A) Defendant and Appellant.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow him to retain private counsel and refusing to approve a plea bargain. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2011, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) with five prior convictions for the same offense (Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(11);1 Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). The information also alleged five prior prison-term commitments (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A jury found defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court made findings regarding the alleged priors. The court sentenced defendant to jail for 11 years. This appeal followed.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In January 2011, police performed a probation search of a motel room rented by defendant and occupied by defendant and his girlfriend. The room contained a “large number” of sealed nitrous oxide canisters, a freezer bag containing 27.31 grams of methamphetamine, another bag containing 1.63 grams of methamphetamine,2 a large quantity of money, and a bag containing numerous DMV title papers for vehicles and over a hundred keys. The jury was informed by stipulation that defendant had previously been convicted three times of possession of methamphetamine for sale. A witness for the defense testified that he worked with defendant recycling cars purchased at auction and that it is a cash business. Defendant’s girlfriend testified she and defendant consumed methamphetamine in the motel room and she was not aware of any drug sales by defendant. DISCUSSION I. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying a Continuance Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance of trial so he could retain counsel. We reject the claim. A. Background In May 2012, defendant was declared incompetent to stand trial and committed to Napa State Hospital. On August 1, he was found competent to stand trial. Trial was set for October 22. On October 22, defendant requested a continuance to enable him to retain private counsel. He asserted, “I had just got an okay with family and friends that they were going to support me in this endeavor. And I spoke with two, Mr. Kass and also Eric Saffire, and one of the two will be hired if the Court’s permitting.” He also asserted, “I’m not requesting time to get a new attorney. I am requesting that I get a new attorney and that I can pay him tomorrow. I don’t need time to hire the attorney. I just need the okay to hire the attorney.” The prosecution objected and stated, “we are ready to