P. v. Farley CA5

Filed 6/4/13 P. v. Farley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F064052 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF132954A) v.

WILLIAM DEAN FARLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge. Michael L. Pinkerton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and John A. Bachman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial. Defendant and appellant William Dean Farley contends the trial court prejudicially erred in ordering defendant shackled during trial. We conclude the trial court’s determination was supported by the record and that, in any event, any error was not prejudicial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Underlying Offenses. A deputy sheriff saw defendant driving a stolen truck early on July 13, 2010, and tried to detain him. Defendant led the deputy on a high-speed chase. Eventually, defendant wrecked the truck. The deputy found defendant walking nearby and arrested him. An amended information charged defendant with felony vehicle theft with prior convictions (count 1; Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)); felony receiving a stolen vehicle (count 2; Pen. Code, § 496d); felony driving in disregard of safety of persons while fleeing a peace officer (count 3; Veh. Code, § 2800.2); and failure to provide information after a property damage accident, a misdemeanor (count 4; id., § 20002, subd. (a)). As to each of the felony counts, the amended information alleged three prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c)-(j); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)). The jury found defendant not guilty on count 1 and guilty on counts 2 through 4. In a bifurcated trial to the court sitting without a jury, the court found the enhancement allegations and the strike allegation to be true for counts 2 through 4. The court sentenced defendant to an operative prison sentence of nine years. B. The Facts Concerning Shackling. In the 16 months leading up to the jury trial, defendant filed motions to represent himself (see Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806) and for new counsel (see People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118). In addition, proceedings were stopped on several