People v. Citizen CA4/1

Filed 12/12/23 P. v. Citizen CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082213

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2001272)

SHAMREN KE SEAN CITIZEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside, Stephen J. Gallon, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. BACKGROUND Appellant Shamren Ke Sean Citizen robbed three people over the course of three consecutive days in May 2020. Shortly after charges were filed, appellant’s counsel requested suspension of the proceedings to determine appellant’s competency. The court found appellant competent to stand trial, and appellant began representing himself after proceedings resumed. Appellant continued to do so until just before the matter was to be tried, when the court found him not competent to represent himself. The court continued trial and reappointed counsel, and counsel represented appellant for the remainder of the case.

The jury convicted appellant of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code1, § 211), two of which were in the first degree (§ 212.5, subd. (b)) and committed with a gun (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to 18 years 8 months in prison calculated as follows: the low term (3 years) and gun enhancement (10 years) for count 1; one-third of the midterm (1 year 4 months) and gun enhancement (3 years 4 months) for count 2; and one- third of the midterm (1 year) for count 3. Although appellant committed the offenses while released on bail, the court stayed imposition of the enhancement for that circumstance (§ 12022.1). On appeal, appellant claims the court had a sua sponte duty to consider mental health diversion, the gun enhancement on count 2 should have been dismissed, and his sentence was based on an outdated probation report. We disagree with each of these claims and affirm the judgment.