People v. Prasad CA2/3

Filed 9/10/15 P. v. Prasad CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B254606

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA097073) v.

DHARMENDRA PRASAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James B. Pierce, Judge. Affirmed. Carey D. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

INTRODUCTION Appellant Prasad asserts a number of claimed errors in his criminal trial and sentencing. Appellant claims that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. He asserts a violation of the confrontation clause and an abuse of discretion because the trial judge limited his cross-examination regarding Wal-Mart’s procedures and policies for detaining shoplifters. The appellant objects that the trial judge was not fair and impartial. And, he objects to an impermissible dual use of his prior convictions. We find these arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant entered a Wal-Mart store. As observed both by store security and video cameras located throughout the store, appellant took a Gateway computer box and placed it in his cart. He removed the anti-theft “spider wrap” from the computer box. Appellant then went to the appliance section and pulled a boxed George Foreman grill off the shelf. Appellant took the grill out of the Foreman box and put it on a lower shelf. Appellant then removed the computer tower from the Gateway box and put it into the empty Foreman grill box. He abandoned the computer box, went around the store a few more times, and then checked out. At the checkout, appellant paid for a Foreman grill and a few other items and left the store. Appellant was stopped by Wal-Mart security and the grill box was taken back inside the store. When that box was opened, it contained a Gateway computer tower. When questioned by the police, appellant admitted that he had gone to Wal-Mart to purchase a computer but, when he didn’t have enough money to purchase the one he wanted, he decided to steal it. In an amended information, appellant was charged with petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction and a prior strike conviction. Penal Code section 666,