People v. Duran CA2/1

Filed 6/10/15 P. v. Duran CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B256701

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA415427) v.

PAUL EDWARD DURAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed. Paul Edward Duran, in pro. per.; and Sarah A. Stockwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2014, appellant Paul Edward Duran was arraigned on a felony information charging him with carjacking, in violation of Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a)1 (count 1); attempted carjacking, in violation of sections 664 and 215, subdivision (a) (count 2); and attempted second degree robbery, in violation of sections 664 and 211 (count 3). In March 2014, the prosecution added an allegation that Duran had suffered a prior strike conviction in New Mexico. Duran represented himself at the jury trial, and filed numerous motions before, during and after trial, including: two section 995 motions; a motion to compel discovery; a Pitchess2 motion; two section 1385 motions to dismiss based on insufficient evidence; a motion to suppress evidence, pursuant to section 1538.5; a demurrer to the amended information; two motions to arrest judgment; a request for judicial notice of a 2004 psychological evaluation; a posttrial discovery motion; a motion for a new trial; and a motion to exclude the photographic six-pack lineup as prejudicial. Some motions were abandoned or withdrawn by Duran; the trial court denied others. Only Duran’s pretrial motion to exclude the six-pack lineup was granted. As to that motion, the court found that the photographic array––in which Duran was the only individual depicted with tattoos on his forehead––was “unduly suggestive” and prohibited the prosecution from using it during the examination of one witness.3 A jury found Duran guilty on all counts. The trial court subsequently found that Duran suffered a strike prior conviction. Duran was sentenced to: the upper term of nine years on count 1, doubled because of the strike prior, one-third the midterm for 10