People v. Sadhra CA3

Filed 4/21/22 P. v. Sadhra CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090765

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR- FDV-2019-0002726) v.

RANA SADHRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Rana Sadhra of stalking, vandalism, and contempt of court, and found true a prior prison term enhancement. Defendant appeals the judgment, contending the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by summarily denying his timely motion to represent himself at trial. In the alternative, defendant argues that if his motion was untimely the trial court erred by denying the motion without engaging in analysis of the factors required by People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 (Windham). Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND We limit our recitation of the background to the circumstances relevant to the contentions on appeal. In 2019, defendant was charged with stalking, vandalism, and contempt of court in connection with an incident of stalking his ex-wife. In April 2019, defendant requested a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. After speaking with defendant and his attorney, the trial court denied the motion. On the day before trial, during a hearing on motions in limine, defense counsel said defendant did not believe the defense was ready to proceed with trial. Defense counsel represented that defendant believed there was additional evidence that needed to be obtained before trial could begin. Such evidence included a video held by the Manteca court branch, surveillance video from Walmart, and surveillance video from nearby retailers. Defense counsel articulated numerous reasons why he did not believe additional evidence could be obtained, including the fact that the Manteca court branch no longer had any such video, and that he did not intend to move for a trial continuance. The trial court stated: “We’re not gonna continue the case. It does not sound like there’s any meaningful possibility of evidence coming up that would assist either you or the other side here. So the People are ready, your lawyer’s ready, so we’re going to go forward, okay. So I’m going to go back to the in limines, unless there’s a different issue to raise.” Neither party indicated further issues, and the trial court proceeded with in limine motions. The next day, as jury selection was about to begin, defense counsel said defendant wished to make a motion to represent himself, pursuant Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta). The trial court responded: “Well, it’s too late, Sir. We’re starting the trial right now, okay. We’re right on the cusp of it, okay, and so I’d deny that at this time as untimely in the extreme, okay. You had ample time to make that motion, including many prior court dates. And the jury is actually coming up as we speak, so it’s too late to do that, Sir. And also, that would frustrate and delay your case,