People v. Williams CA2/8

Filed 1/21/21 P. v. Williams CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B297910 (consolidated with B298105) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. Nos. SA098596 and SA096698) RICKY MARSHAWN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry A. Bork, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Catherine White, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

INTRODUCTION Appellant challenges revocation of two grants of probation. He argues the trial court permitted him to represent himself without advising him of his right to counsel and taking an appropriate waiver of that right. We agree and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant Ricky Marshawn Williams was under two separate grants of probation in case numbers SA098596 and SA096698 when he was charged in a new complaint (the new case) with one count of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of making criminal threats. The People moved to revoke one grant of probation in SA098596, but not the other grant in SA096698. At the October 10, 2018 arraignment on the new case, the trial court entered a plea of not guilty and summarily revoked probation in SA098596. The trial court calendared the new case for a preliminary hearing and calendared the probation case for a violation hearing setting on October 23, 2018. Both matters were set in Department 32. Appellant was represented by the same attorney in both matters. Apparently, after the preliminary hearing, the two matters became separated because for several appearances, they were calendared on different dates, albeit in the same courtroom. On October 23, 2018, the probation matter was transferred to Department 117 for a possible probation violation hearing setting. For a period of months, Department 117 continued the violation hearing setting to December 4, 2018, January 9, 2019, January 22, 2019, February 5, 2019, February 27, 2019, March 6, 2019 and finally to March 7, 2019. In each of these court appearances, when appellant was present, he was represented by