P. v. Erazo CA4/3

Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Erazo CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047606

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10NF1209)

VICTOR ALEJANDRO ERAZO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Victor Alejandro Erazo filed a notice of appeal. His appointed counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case, but advised this court he found no issues to support an appeal. We provided Erazo 30 days to file his own written argument, but he has not responded. After conducting an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. FACTS In People v. Erazo (May 18, 2012, G045542 [nonpub. opn.]), we conditionally reversed the judgment after the jury convicted Erazo of committing forcible and nonforcible lewd acts on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); § 288, subd. (a)). We accepted the Attorney General’s concession, and agreed with Erazo, the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying Erazo’s request to discharge retained counsel. We directed the trial court “to conduct a hearing at which the court shall determine Erazo’s May 12, 2011, request to discharge retained counsel in the light of the standard articulated in [People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975 (Ortiz)] and related cases. If the court determines Erazo was entitled to discharge counsel, the court shall set the case for retrial. If the court determines Erazo was not entitled to discharge counsel, the court shall reinstate the judgment.” The trial court conducted the hearing on November 2, 2012. The trial court explained events that existed on the date of Erazo’s request: “Both counsel answered ready for this trial on May 11[, 2011] in Department C5. Shortly, and by that I mean by an hour, hour and a half thereafter, they appeared in my courtroom, W9, . . . to commence the beginning of the trial. [¶] The People filed their trial brief, 402 motions, witness list and jury instructions. [¶] The court conferred with counsel in chambers regarding 402 issues and discussion of how this court conducts its trials. [¶] The court then went on the record and dealt with the defendant’s first request for an interpreter. The court also heard argument on 402 motions on a variety of topics, including identification of the victim, victim’s support person, admissibility of defendant’s affair with another woman at the