People v. Estupinan CA2/5

Filed 10/11/23 P. v. Estupinan CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B321034

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. v. KA125016, KA124513) LEONEL FUNDORA ESTUPINAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon and Olivia Meme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

The jury found Leonel Fundora Estupinan guilty of multiple counts relating to two incidents of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to a total of four years eight months in state prison. Estupinan was originally represented by appointed counsel, but later invoked his right to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta) and began representing himself. However, the trial court subsequently revoked Estupinan’s pro. per. status and appointed standby counsel to represent him going forward. On appeal, Estupinan challenges the revocation of his pro. per. status. We conclude that Estupinan forfeited the issue by failing to object in the trial court. We decline to exercise our discretion to excuse forfeiture, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PROCEEDINGS

Estupinan first requested to represent himself at a hearing on June 8, 2021. His primary motivation was that appointed counsel had too many cases and would not be able to devote sufficient time to his case. Estupinan did not believe that appointing new counsel would alleviate the problem. The trial court discussed the pitfalls of self-representation and reviewed Estupinan’s Faretta waiver with him at length, after which Estupinan decided to continue with appointed counsel and renew his request at the next hearing if necessary. At the next hearing, on July 1, 2021, Estupinan again requested to represent himself. After advising Estupinan of the rights that he would be waiving, the trial court granted the motion.