People v. Alvarado CA2/7

Filed 4/12/21 P. v. Alvarado CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B305318

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA147104) v.

CHRISTOPHER ALVARADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Cole-Hall, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________

Christopher Alvarado appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of multiple sex crimes involving a young child. No arguable issues have been identified following review of the record by Alvarado’s appointed appellate counsel or our own independent review. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an information filed in September 2018 Alvarado was charged with four counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)) and 10 counts of forcible lewd conduct with the same child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)). An amended information filed on December 18, 2019 contained the same 14 charges but amended certain dates to conform to proof. A month after the original information was filed Alvarado moved to replace his appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Alvarado complained his lawyer had not been to see him and was aggressive and condescending toward him when they spoke. Counsel responded she had met with Alvarado through video conferences to obtain the information she required for his defense. The court denied the motion, explaining to Alvarado it was not necessary for his lawyer to see him in person to effectively represent him and the fact she might be more courteous toward him did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. On December 13, 2018, after being fully advised of the rights he was waiving, Alvarado insisted on representing himself. The court appointed standby counsel. On May 29, 2019 the court granted Alvarado’s request to revoke his self-represented status and reappointed counsel to represent him.