People v. Valdez CA3

Filed 1/11/22 P. v. Valdez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092883

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF01909)

v.

ANTHONY VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Anthony Valdez guilty of making criminal threats. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true a prior strike conviction allegation. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for self-representation under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta). We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts underlying the charge are not relevant for purposes of this appeal. It suffices to say that the prosecution charged defendant with one count of making criminal

1

threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a))1 and alleged a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)). The jury found defendant guilty of the single charge and the trial court found true the prior strike allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison. DISCUSSION Defendant contends that he made a timely Faretta motion and the trial court’s denial of that request was per se reversible error. Alternatively, defendant argues that if the request was untimely, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request without utilizing the factors set forth in People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121. We conclude defendant waived any claim to his right to self-representation because his single reference to self-representation was equivocal and did not constitute an effective invocation of his right. A. Factual background Defendant was on postrelease community supervision when the instant offense took place. He was arrested and charged in April 2020. During several subsequent proceedings, defendant was proactive in understanding the legal aspects of his case. Defendant was primarily concerned with exercising his right to a speedy trial. With the exception of two weeks in July, he did not enter a time waiver. On multiple occasions, defendant expressed concern that his trial had not yet begun and the trial court confirmed the date was set within the statutory timeframe. On the date originally set for trial in July, the trial court found good cause to continue the trial to September 14, 2020. Trial was continued again for one week due to wildfire evacuations. Scheduling trial was also made difficult due to the COVID-19 pandemic.