People v. Berry CA2/1

Filed 9/30/15 P. v. Berry CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B260904

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. MA056156, v. MA060394)

LARRY WAYNE BERRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed. David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief summation of the factual and procedural history of the case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124 (Kelly).) BACKGROUND On April 18, 2012, Larry W. Berry (Berry) went to a Target store in Palmdale and took a bicycle and two packs of batteries without paying. Berry was charged with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 4591) and petty theft with three priors (§ 666, subd. (a)), with nine prior convictions that qualified as prison priors and prior felonies. On July 28 and August 1, 2013, Berry went to a CVS store in Palmdale and took items valued at $200 or more without paying. Berry was charged with two counts each of second degree commercial burglary (§ 459) and petty theft with three priors (§ 666, subd. (a)), with nine prior convictions that qualified as prison priors. A. Trial court proceedings The trial court consolidated the cases, denied Berry’s Marsden2 motion to relieve his counsel, denied Berry’s counsel’s request to declare a doubt about Berry’s competence and, after accepting his Faretta3 waivers, granted Berry’s request to proceed pro. per. While pro. per., Berry filed several motions, including requests for ancillary funds, for discovery, to set aside counts, for continuance, and for a different judge to preside over his case. Before the new judge, Berry eventually sought appointment of counsel, which was granted. Berry’s new counsel filed a motion to set aside the information under section 995.