People v. Badue CA1/3

Filed 11/15/22 P. v. Badue CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162813 v. STEVE BADUE, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 20-SF-010783-A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Steve Badue appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court found him guilty of a number of offenses related to public intoxication and resisting peace officers.1 He contends he did not make a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The details of defendant’s offenses are not germane to the issue before us on appeal. Suffice it to say that on September 20, 2020, while intoxicated in public, defendant failed to comply with a police officer’s directions; struggled against officers trying to take him into custody, causing one of

In conjunction with this appeal, appellant filed two petitions for writ 1

of habeas corpus, In re Steve Badue, A164311, and In re Steve Badue, A164323. We have denied these petitions by separate orders filed this date.

1

them to stumble, strike a light pole with her head, and suffer injuries; and spat on an officer’s pants and boot. Defendant represented himself at trial, and he waived his right to a jury trial and elected to be tried by the court. The trial court found him guilty on February 16, 2021 of misdemeanor public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f));2 felony delaying or resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)); misdemeanor battery on a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b)); two counts of resisting an executive officer in the performance of the officer’s duties (§ 69), with a great bodily injury enhancement as to one count (§§ 1203 subd. (e)(3), 12022.7, subd. (a)); and resisting and causing serious bodily injury to a peace officer (§ 148.10). The trial court declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency and suspended criminal proceedings on March 10, 2021. (§ 1368.) It appointed a psychologist and a psychiatrist to examine him. Both of them concluded defendant was competent, and the court so found. The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years for violation of section 148.10, causing serious injury to a peace officer, with the other terms either concurrent or stayed. DISCUSSION Defendant contends his waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. A criminal defendant has a right to trial by jury under both the federal and state constitutions. (People v. Weaver (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1056, 1071; U.S. Const., amend. VI; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) This right, however, may be waived by consent of both parties. (Weaver, at p. 1071.) To be valid, a defendant’s waiver must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent, that is, “ ‘ “made with a full awareness both of the nature of