People v. Arceo CA3

Filed 1/9/23 P. v. Arceo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093674

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-MH- SVPR-2010-0000774) v.

ANTHONY ARCEO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Anthony Arceo appeals from the trial court’s order committing him as a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)1 He contends reversal is required because the trial court erroneously refused to consider his request to represent himself at his SVP

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

commitment trial. We conclude the trial court erred in finding defendant had no such right as a matter of law and denying his request. We shall vacate the commitment order and remand the matter to the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to allow defendant to represent himself. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Given the narrow nature of defendant’s contentions on appeal, we recite only the necessary facts. In 1983, defendant was convicted of rape, and in 1994 he was convicted of kidnapping with attempt to commit rape. In 2010, the prosecutor filed a petition to commit defendant as an SVP. In April 2011, after holding a contested probable cause hearing, the trial court found probable cause existed that defendant met the criteria for commitment as an SVP. In November 2019, the trial court granted defendant’s Marsden2 motion and appointed new defense counsel. In November 2020, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the SVP petition. Defendant had argued his due process right to a speedy trial had been violated. On January 4, 2021, the trial court held a hearing after defendant made another Marsden motion. Trial was set to start on February 8, and the jurors had been summoned and both parties were prepared to proceed. The court noted defense counsel was experienced in SVP hearings and had acted professionally. Defendant argued his counsel had provided ineffective assistance and was unprepared for trial because his 1994 conviction was based on false testimony. The court responded that defendant had