People v. Moseley CA2/1

Filed 4/29/16 P. v. Moseley CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B261997

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA430104) v.

DEANTE MOSELEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frederick N. Wapner, Judge. Affirmed. ______

Jared G. Coleman, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

Appellant Deante Moseley appeals from the judgment of conviction of one count of second degree robbery. The trial court granted appellant’s request to represent himself. Thereafter, the court found appellant suffered from a mental disorder that impaired his ability to represent himself without the assistance of counsel, and relying on Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 554 U.S. 164, 177-178 (Edwards), the court revoked appellant’s propria persona (pro. per.) status. Appellant claims that the trial court violated his right to self-representation when it revoked his pro. per. status because substantial evidence did not support the court’s finding of mental illness. In the alternative, appellant argues that the court erred in failing to order a mental health evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial and that the failure to do so violated state law and the United States constitutional right to due process. As we shall explain, appellant’s claims lack merit; sufficient evidence supported the court’s ruling. Thus, the court did not err in revoking the appellant’s pro. per. status or in failing to suspend the proceedings to conduct an evaluation of his competency for trial. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 2, 2014, appellant forced his way into a discount store as the owners were opening the shop for the day. He proceeded to steal several small items, and after a brief confrontation with the owners, appellant escaped. In a separate incident on the same day, appellant entered a different store and purportedly stole several items. The police apprehended appellant shortly thereafter. The information charged appellant with two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and further alleged that appellant had served prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On October 20, 2014, before the preliminary hearing, appellant waived his right to counsel and requested to proceed in pro. per. The court advised appellant of the risks and obligations of self-representation. Appellant told the court that he had the “equivalent education” of a paralegal and had represented himself in a prior criminal case in 2013. The trial court granted the request. Appellant proceeded to represent himself during the preliminary