People v. Sangurima CA2/7

Filed 4/20/16 P. v. Sangurima CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B257872

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA411802) v.

CHRISTIAN SANGURIMA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald H. Rose, Judge. Affirmed. Mark J. Shusted, 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, Roberta L. Davis and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Christian Sangurima, who was convicted of a carjacking that was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the intent of promoting, furthering, and assisting in criminal conduct by gang members (Pen. Code,1 §§ 215, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(4)), appeals his conviction and sentence on the grounds that he personally was denied the right of allocution before imposition of judgment and that the court potentially committed error under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). He requests that the matter be remanded for the limited purpose of permitting him to exercise a personal right to show legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After a jury trial, Sangurima was convicted of carjacking, and the jury found true the special gang enhancement allegation. Sangurima’s appointed attorney filed a motion for new trial. On July 25, 2014, Sangurima, his attorney, and the prosecutor appeared for a hearing on the new trial motion, a court trial on prior conviction allegations, and sentencing. Sangurima’s counsel led off the hearing by requesting a continuance to accommodate his schedule and because Sangurima was in the process of retaining private counsel. The court denied the requested continuance and turned to the new trial motion, asking counsel if there was anything he wished to add to his written presentation. Counsel said he had nothing to add but that his client wished “to address the court on a new trial motion.” The court declined to permit Sangurima to speak because he was represented by counsel. Sangurima began to address the court, but the court responded, “You may keep quiet,” and asked counsel if there was anything more he would like to say. Counsel stated that he believed that his client felt that he had not had an opportunity to review the motion for a new trial. The prosecutor declined to argue the motion, and the court began to rule on the motion for new trial. As the court spoke, Sangurima interrupted, saying,