People v. Willett CA1/2

Filed 11/2/20 P. v. Willett CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A158201 v. DARRIN WILLETT, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCTMCRCR2019300151) Defendant and Appellant.

Darrin Willett appeals from a conviction of unlawful use of tear gas. He contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and trial counsel’s failure to request instructions on self-defense constituted in ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent seeks dismissal of the appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, based on appellant’s failures to report to probation after being released from jail on mandatory supervision. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by information filed on January 15, 2019, with assault by a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 and unlawful use of tear gas (§ 22810, subd. (g)(1)), with allegations that he had four prior

Further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated. 1

felony convictions for which he had served prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). These charges were also the basis for a petition alleging appellant violated probation in a 2016 case (No. SCTM-CRCR-16-87363-1) in which he pled no contest to a charge of threat to use force against a crime victim (§ 140, subd. (a)). After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of unlawful use of tear gas and not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon or the lesser included offenses of assault (§ 240) or threatening with a weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant waived jury trial on the priors, and the court found them true. Based on the jury’s guilty verdict, the court found appellant in violation of probation in the 2016 threat case, as well as in a 2018 case. On May 6, 2019, appellant was sentenced to a term of eight years,2 to be served five years in confinement in local prison and three years on mandatory supervision. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.3 Counsel was appointed to represent appellant, and moved for a stay of appeal and limited remand for appellant to seek relief under Senate Bill No. 136, pursuant to which appellant would not be subject to the one-year terms for his prior prison sentences. We remanded, and on January 27, 2020, appellant was resentenced to four years, consisting of a three-year local prison term and one year of mandatory supervision. Appellant was released from jail on April 2, 2020, to complete the mandatory supervision portion of his sentence. On May 4, 2020, the probation officer filed a petition for violation of mandatory supervision,